Hopewell culture and The Book of Mormon

[livy111us 285]

Some Great Lakes theorists, including Meldrum, claim that the Hopewell were the Nephites. However, as this blog post points out, the Hopewell were a culture that didn't have the population to meet the smallest numbers mentioned in The Book of Mormon, let alone the large ones. They lived in small villages (at best) not cities as mentioned in The Book of Mormon, etc...

From the FAIR blog:

The Book of Mormon narrative begins with a small group of people who arrived in the Americas around 600 b.c. and numbered less than 30 people. Yet, within 1,000 years, grew to a civilization of hundreds of thousands of people. While the dynamics of such a population growth seems astronomical, it has been dealt with by previous scholars. 1 What is important to realize is the vast amount of people that compose the Nephites and Lamanites in The Book of Mormon. For example, after the Nephites fled the land of Nephi and joined the Mulekites in the city of Zarahemla, it is said that the group was

[livy111us 285]

This is on the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, found here:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/394

[Tango 10]

Much of the evidence they provide does not remotely come close to the time periods when they should have happened. I will be pulling evidence from the Middle Woodland period (between 1 and 500 AD)

More like 100%. The Book of Mormon is fiction. There is NO evidence that supports the book of mormon claims. Please do show the entire world ONE piece of historical evidence that supports a group of people that worshipped Jesus Christ in the Americas for over 200 years pre-columbus? The USA is just over 200 yrs old...imaganie removing all the evidence that we existed? such non-sense.

Tango: Review the board guidelines and stop trying to derail the thread.

[livy111us 285]

Obviously you have not read any scholarly works on Mormonism. Just an average un-informed critic. Good luck with that.

[Tango 10]

Obviously you have not read any scholarly works on Mormonism. Just an average un-informed critic. Good luck with that.

Excuse me? Please show the world your evidence- Hard evidence please- Of course there is NONE- So it is you that is un-informed, of which I feel sorry.

I leave you with a direct quote from that infamous Daniel C. Peterson, a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University.

But I would agree that you don't have anything remotely near slam-dunk proof for the Book of Mormon in the New World

It might be better to look for evidence of Lord of the Rings, at least the following would be greater.

[livy111us 285]

Read An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon and Brant Gardners commentary on the BOM. Once you are educated, please come back.

[LDS Guy 1986 38]

I leave you with a direct quote from that infamous Daniel C. Peterson, a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University.

Well if you looked at the whole quote, he went on to say that the Bible has no slam dunk evidence either.

This statement was made in defense of the BoM by hypocritical Anti-Mormons who made a error filled film that claim the Bible is 100% proven and the BoM has no evidence (both claims are lies the Bible is far from 100% or ever 50% proven, and the BoM has lots of supporting evidence if one looks for it)

Your statement is not true, and your "quote" is taken so far out of context that the comment shows the double standard that is still being used by vicious critics.

[facie ad faciem 1]

To get back on track, I'd forgotten about the spread of the bow and arrow. The transition from atlatl to bow is a major technological shift throughout the Americas and is readily detected within the archaeological record. I double-checked some sources and rediscovered that no definitive use of the bow and arrow is found from the Plains eastward before ~AD 400-500. Even in the West/Southwest the transition occurs during the first centuries AD.

[Alan 513]

When I visited the US I was amused that fairly small settlements were called cities. Some American cities would be considered small towns or even villages here in England. So what is a city? As the BofM does not clarify the definition in terms of population or geographical area, I think this thread is based on an unsafe assumption.

[Rivers 831]

When I visited the US I was amused that fairly small settlements were called cities. Some American cities would be considered small towns or even villages here in England. So what is a city? As the BofM does not clarify the definition in terms of population or geographical area, I think this thread is based on an unsafe assumption.

But the numbers of people being killed in wars are very high which implies that there was a lot of people.

[livy111us 285]

But the numbers of people being killed in wars are very high which implies that there was a lot of people.

I agree with you, Rivers. The article has nothing to do with what is considered a city, but population sizes. If that is all Alan got out of it, he may need to go re-read it. The BOM "cities" hold thousands and tens of thousands of people (and sometimes walled around about, most likely of stone), while the Hopewell did not. As mentioned, they were a small population spread out over very large area, even in the most concentrated areas. It is absolutely impossible that the Hopewell were BOM peoples.

[livy111us 285]

To get back on track, I'd forgotten about the spread of the bow and arrow. The transition from atlatl to bow is a major technological shift throughout the Americas and is readily detected within the archaeological record. I double-checked some sources and rediscovered that no definitive use of the bow and arrow is found from the Plains eastward before ~AD 400-500. Even in the West/Southwest the transition occurs during the first centuries AD.

I found this information interesting. I don't think it is life or death from the heartlanders, but is a cherry on top. I would like to see your resources on that. I don't doubt it, but am curious. It all post-dates the BOM, but some estimates put it much later:

[facie ad faciem 1]

I found this information interesting. I don't think it is life or death from the heartlanders, but is a cherry on top. I would like to see your resources on that. I don't doubt it, but am curious. It all post-dates the BOM, but some estimates put it much later

I'm much more familiar with the SW, Great Basin, and Paleoindian cultures, but I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Prehistory volume on North America (Peregrine & Ember 2001), which gives an in-depth overview of all the archaeological cultures in North America. I looked through it for references to the bow and arrow. From current data, no evidence of the bow and arrow has been found among Plains cultures prior to 1500 BP and none before 1300 BP (and most not 'til after 1000 BP) within Eastern Woodland cultures.

Again, like you said, it's no nail in the coffin, but an unfortunate miss for the Heartland model.

[Anijen 872]

I'm much more familiar with the SW, Great Basin, and Paleoindian cultures, but I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Prehistory volume on North America (Peregrine & Ember 2001), which gives an in-depth overview of all the archaeological cultures in North America. I looked through it for references to the bow and arrow. From current data, no evidence of the bow and arrow has been found among Plains cultures prior to 1500 BP and none before 1300 BP (and most not 'til after 1000 BP) within Eastern Woodland cultures.

Again, like you said, it's no nail in the coffin, but an unfortunate miss for the Heartland model.

American Indians did not have the bow that early but did use the atlatl. It is interesting to note that the Book of Mormon uses the verb cast as in they cast their arrows. Atlatls are used the same way a lacrosse player flings a ball it basically extends his reach giving him more power and accuracy. Both American Indians and Mayans employed this.see here

[livy111us 285]

I'm much more familiar with the SW, Great Basin, and Paleoindian cultures, but I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Prehistory volume on North America (Peregrine & Ember 2001), which gives an in-depth overview of all the archaeological cultures in North America. I looked through it for references to the bow and arrow. From current data, no evidence of the bow and arrow has been found among Plains cultures prior to 1500 BP and none before 1300 BP (and most not 'til after 1000 BP) within Eastern Woodland cultures.

Again, like you said, it's no nail in the coffin, but an unfortunate miss for the Heartland model.

Thanks. It looks like we are looking at a very similar time period for the introduction of the bow and arrow with an introduction from 500-700 ad among the Woodland culture.

[livy111us 285]

American Indians did not have the bow that early but did use the atlatl. It is interesting to note that the Book of Mormon uses the verb cast as in they cast their arrows. Atlatls are used the same way a lacrosse player flings a ball it basically extends his reach giving him more power and accuracy. Both American Indians and Mayans employed this.see here

Thanks, Anijen. I should have explained that more, but yes, the atlatl was the primary weapon/hunting device prior to the introduction of the bow and arrow after the destruction of the Nephites, which replaced the atlatl as the weapon of choice.

[Doctor Steuss 313]

evidence

proof