Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hashbaz

Seven New Sites Found Near Merida That Date To Book Of Mormon Times

Recommended Posts

Just saw this posted on a message board we Mesoamericanists use to disseminate information to each other and thought it might be of interest to you all. The post was made by Mike Ruggeri, who, as far as I know, is not LDS and knows (and cares) nothing about the Book of Mormon.

Seven new sites and ancient burials have been found in and around the town of Sitpach, near Merida, Yucatan, dating from 400 BCE-200 CE. Large structures, ceramics and other items have been uncovered by INAH. They are called Oxmul, Polok Ceh, Cuzam, Chan Much, Nichak, Tzak and Chankiuik. A type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul. The timeline for the florescence of Maya culture in the northern Yucatan has been pushed back to 400 BCE as a result of these finds. INAH will not begin the long process of restoration on all of the finds.

INAH has the story (in Spanish), with one photo;

http://www.inah.gob.mx/index.php/boletines/7-zonas-arqueologicas/5036-registran-siete-nuevos-sitios-mayas-en-merida

A tiny URL;

http://goo.gl/6dN9q

Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links

http://tinyurl.com/atpsd9

Please note that the names given to those sites are not ancient, but rather were made up recently by the archaeologists. I know according to most LGT models the Yucatan is not the right place for any of the events in the Book of Mormon, but this information illustrates how quickly paradigms shift in Maya archaeology and how little we really know about the Preclassic period.

The passing comment that "a type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul" is significant. We often define cultures by their ceramic styles, and a completely new style was found at Oxmul. Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

The passing comment that "a type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul" is significant. We often define cultures by their ceramic styles, and a completely new style was found at Oxmul. Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

What is polychrome ceramic? Interesting find non the less.

Share this post


Link to post

"polychrome" equals "multi-coloured"?

yep....see here:

http://www.amazon.com/Creations-Rainbow-Serpent-Polychrome-Ceramic/dp/0826315887

Product Description

This volume brings a fresh perspective to the multicolored Coclé ceramic wares excavated at Sitio Conte in central Panama during the 1930s. The Coclé culture was a hierarchical and centralized society that flourished about a thousand years ago. Many of these ceramic wares were unearthed in caches and burials of elite figures. Coclé artists decorated their ceramics with a combination of geometrical forms and lively, graphic depictions of curious birds and beasts. Helms sees in these polychromes a semiotic code expressing sociological and cosmological concepts of the Coclé culture. Individual chapters explore chromatics, serpents, mammals, birds and fowl, body parts and processes, the tree of life, and other themes. This volume is handsomely illustrated with black-and-white and color plates and dozens of line drawings.

Share this post


Link to post

What is polychrome ceramic? Interesting find non the less.

"Polychrome ceramics" refer to multi-colored plates, bowls, cups, vases, etc. that are often elaborately painted with mythological or historical events (see mayavase.com for examples). Even if a ceramic object lacks provenience (due to looting), we can usually tell when and where it came from based on its color and style. Different places and different eras preferred different styles; polychrome, monochrome (all white, all orange, etc) or bichrome (black and white).

Share this post


Link to post

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

Conclusive evidence they did not observe the word of wisdom. And, judging by your moniker, you must be one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Just saw this posted on a message board we Mesoamericanists use to disseminate information to each other and thought it might be of interest to you all. The post was made by Mike Ruggeri, who, as far as I know, is not LDS and knows (and cares) nothing about the Book of Mormon.

Please note that the names given to those sites are not ancient, but rather were made up recently by the archaeologists. I know according to most LGT models the Yucatan is not the right place for any of the events in the Book of Mormon, but this information illustrates how quickly paradigms shift in Maya archaeology and how little we really know about the Preclassic period.

The passing comment that "a type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul" is significant. We often define cultures by their ceramic styles, and a completely new style was found at Oxmul. Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

They are going to keep stumbling around the jungle and digging holes down there until somebody stumble on to Zarahemla. Don't they uderstand what a mess that would cause?

Share this post


Link to post

Just saw this posted on a message board we Mesoamericanists use to disseminate information to each other and thought it might be of interest to you all. The post was made by Mike Ruggeri, who, as far as I know, is not LDS and knows (and cares) nothing about the Book of Mormon.

Please note that the names given to those sites are not ancient, but rather were made up recently by the archaeologists. I know according to most LGT models the Yucatan is not the right place for any of the events in the Book of Mormon, but this information illustrates how quickly paradigms shift in Maya archaeology and how little we really know about the Preclassic period.

The passing comment that "a type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul" is significant. We often define cultures by their ceramic styles, and a completely new style was found at Oxmul. Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

Of course, since the archaeologists didn't report that their true names were Zarahemlah, Manti, etc. the Book of Mormon is still disproved. diablo2.gif

Yours under the sarcastic oaks,

Nathair /|\

Share this post


Link to post

Of course, since the archaeologists didn't report that their true names were Zarahemlah, Manti, etc. the Book of Mormon is still disproved. diablo2.gif

Yours under the sarcastic oaks,

Nathair /|\

A sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" would definitely be helpful

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the info! I find this stuff fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for this information.

Share this post


Link to post
I know according to most LGT models the Yucatan is not the right place for any of the events in the Book of Mormon, but (...)

Good one. So is this a near-hit or a near-miss?

Share this post


Link to post

Just saw this posted on a message board we Mesoamericanists use to disseminate information to each other and thought it might be of interest to you all. The post was made by Mike Ruggeri, who, as far as I know, is not LDS and knows (and cares) nothing about the Book of Mormon.

Please note that the names given to those sites are not ancient, but rather were made up recently by the archaeologists. I know according to most LGT models the Yucatan is not the right place for any of the events in the Book of Mormon, but this information illustrates how quickly paradigms shift in Maya archaeology and how little we really know about the Preclassic period.

The passing comment that "a type of polychrome ceramics never before found in the Maya area were found at Oxmul" is significant. We often define cultures by their ceramic styles, and a completely new style was found at Oxmul. Nephite pot, anyone? ;)

I tend to believe that the USA is where the Nephites and Lamanites lived; however, the above is fascinating! It is not difficult for me to consider that the Mayans, and many, many other peoples, could very well represent some of those who were scattered when the confounding of language took place at the tower of Babel before the land parted at the time of Peleg. Indeed, God has manifested a propensity for leading groups of people to new places throughout the history of mankind. Someday, we will finally have all of these mysteries resolved; but not until God is ready to make these things known.

Thank you very much for sharing!

Regards,

jo

Share this post


Link to post

so what does any of this show in terms of things LDS? Was there ever a dispute of people living south the United States border around 400BC? I do not see the significance in relations to LDS things.

Share this post


Link to post

Good one. So is this a near-hit or a near-miss?

It's a bullseye! Admittedly, I've got a really big target since I'm an LGT generalist and don't hold to any of the specific geographies that have been offered. Mesoamerica in general is the right place, so discoveries like this are illuminating. It shows that a hitherto unknown culture (as defined by their ceramics) lived among the Maya from the period between 400 BC and 200 AD. It demonstrates that the argument made by apologists that the Nephites could have lived among the larger culture while maintaining their own identity now has a precise analogue in the archaeological record dating to the Nephite time period. The people of Oxmul managed to do it, so why can't we allow that Nephites could have done the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post

It demonstrates that the argument made by apologists that the Nephites could have lived among the larger culture while maintaining their own identity now has a precise analogue in the archaeological record dating to the Nephite time period. The people of Oxmul managed to do it, so why can't we allow that Nephites could have done the same thing?

I have thought this and never knew anyone else who did. I discussed it once and it was quickly dismissed. I tend to think the Nephites could have lived as a subculture in a larger group. Almas group did for a time.

Share this post


Link to post

It's a bullseye! Admittedly, I've got a really big target since I'm an LGT generalist and don't hold to any of the specific geographies that have been offered. Mesoamerica in general is the right place, so discoveries like this are illuminating. It shows that a hitherto unknown culture (as defined by their ceramics) lived among the Maya from the period between 400 BC and 200 AD. It demonstrates that the argument made by apologists that the Nephites could have lived among the larger culture while maintaining their own identity now has a precise analogue in the archaeological record dating to the Nephite time period. The people of Oxmul managed to do it, so why can't we allow that Nephites could have done the same thing?

I didn't realize that implication, just thought the finds were cool....even more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

I have thought this and never knew anyone else who did. I discussed it once and it was quickly dismissed. I tend to think the Nephites could have lived as a subculture in a larger group.

What was the argument against it?

And do you mean the subculture was mixed in as a minority in the small villages, towns and cities or more segregated as in there were Nephite villages, towns and cities surrounded by nonNephite?

Share this post


Link to post

I have thought this and never knew anyone else who did. I discussed it once and it was quickly dismissed. I tend to think the Nephites could have lived as a subculture in a larger group. Almas group did for a time.

Agreed. And it is clear that people who dismiss things that are clearly possible, given human propensities, are assuming too much. I am told that there are areas in Argentina (and perhaps other SA countries as well) where you can be driving down a road only to suddenly discover whole villages of German-speakers descended from immigrants of earlier times who never fully assimilated. If now, why not then?

Although this particular find doesn't in any case prove a darned thing beyond the fact that distinct cultures could very easily exist among others, which is nevertheless a good thing to show (and as Frank says, anyone with a brain could see the likelihood). I really would not expect this particular culture to be related to the Nephites or the Lamanites. I guess I am expecting that they will be found outside of the Yucatan.

Share this post


Link to post

What was the argument against it?

And do you mean the subculture was mixed in as a minority in the small villages, towns and cities or more segregated as in there were Nephite villages, towns and cities surrounded by nonNephite?

The arguement against IIRC was something about the BOM stating that everyone in land was converted, of course that would only cover a short period of time.

As for my opinion the matter, I guess I see that it could be both, a subgroup in a village or a Nephite village surrounded by other non-Nephite villages. I just thought of it all along the lines of religious groups today particularly the LDS, the LDS are a subgroup in society within a larger group of society. I would have to say I developed this personal theory to explain to myself why there is so little if any evidence of a Judeo-Christian religion to be found among the aceint peoples of the Western Hemisphere. Another personal theory of mine is the Geronimo's tribe had a connection to Nephites. A documentary I watched once said Geronimo was a "shirt wearer" in his tribe, shirt wearers were given special clothing and their task with in the tribe was to care for the needed.

Share this post


Link to post
I've got a really big target since I'm an LGT generalist (...) Mesoamerica in general is the right place (...) It demonstrates that the argument made by apologists that the Nephites could have lived among the larger culture while maintaining their own identity now has a precise analogue in the archaeological record (...)

OK, if your standards are low and you're only looking for what could be true, it is a bullseye indeed. Congratulations ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

OK, if your standards are low and you're only looking for what could be true, it is a bullseye indeed. Congratulations ;-)

:rolleyes: Was that really necessary?...

IMO Hashbaz post was a very legitimate response. It just goes to show, danged if you do danged if you don't

Share this post


Link to post
Was that really necessary?

Is posting to a message board ever necessary?

IMO Hashbaz post was a very legitimate response.

My remark was not directed at the OP but at Hashbaz's follow-up in post no. 16. I think mine was a rather accurate summary (and I don't see Hashbaz complaining).

Share this post


Link to post
Is posting to a message board ever necessary?

Sometimes.

What about your specific post?

My remark was not directed at the OP but at Hashbaz's follow-up in post no. 16. I think mine was a rather accurate summary (and I don't see Hashbaz complaining).

Oh, that makes it ok. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...