Tapirs As Horses

[mfbukowski]

Here is an interesting youtube video by Stan Lutz who has been studying the ICA stones of Peru.

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

The Ica stones are a collection of andesite stones that bear a variety of diagrams, including depictions of dinosaurs and what is alleged to be advanced technology. They were popularized by Peruvian physician Javier Cabrera. They are sometimes uncovered by archaeologists in pre-Hispanic tombs, though stones showing out-of-place animals or devices are considered to be a modern hoax created by Peruvian locals.

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

I don't beleive that useing Oliver as the source for the translation method is justified.

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.7?lang=eng

[Kiviuq]

Keep in mind that they had domesticated oxen that could be used to plow fields and pull carts. There would be little need for another domesticated animal with similar attributes to oxen. Why hook up a tapir to pull a cart when you have oxen? A horse would provide for very different uses.

[jo1952]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Hi MF,

I am quite aware of all of the hoax stories surrounding the ICA stones. As you well know, there are also plenty of hoax stories surrounding Joseph Smith. If you will search further, you will find several commentaries on researches and testing that has been done on distinguishing the fakes from the authentics. I am sure if we dig far enough, we will find just as many scholars who support the idea they are real, as who support the idea they are not; just as we can find in any type of study.

Therefore, as with all other studies, we are left to search things out, pros and cons, and decide on what we will think is acceptable or not; or just decide that not enough is yet known for us to make a decision one way or the other.

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 22, 2011 by jo1952

[thesometimesaint]

Kiviuq:

I don't believe we actually know what if anything Tapirs were used for in a BoM context. But it is within the realm of possible that Tapirs were used for a number of purposes.

[cinepro]

I work in sixteenth-century encounter texts--in my case, documents written by Europeans (primarily Jesuit missionaries) in Southeast Asia and the islands of the Pacific. In a classic case of loan-shifting, the Portuguese in the East applied their word for fig, figo, to bananas as well. In Jesuit letters from this time period, therefore, the word can refer either to figs or bananas. A reference to Adam and Eve having covered their shame with figo leaves is an obvious allusion to the Bible and suggests figs. A discussion about having been feasted in a local village with roast pork and roast figos suggests bananas--not because the text itself makes this clear but merely because it's the only way of resolving an apparent anachronism, domesticated European figs not having been known to exist in the region during this time period. In many other cases, the distinction is not clear at all, and we have no way of knowing what was 'meant' by a particular use of the word.

That's due to the fact that, to my Jesuit letter writers, none of this discussion would even have made sense. They knew Biblical figs (with Indian-born Jesuits knowing them only from the Bible), and they knew local figs (bananas), and to them they were the same thing simultaneously--regardless of what later Linnaean classification or DNA studies might suggest. This is precisely what happens in loan-shifting, which is one hallmark of encounter literature:

Here is the critical flaw in the "loan shifting" argument.

If we remember that Nephi was writing in a different language, then that would mean that he had some word (let's say "sus") that he applied to the New World animal (let's hypothesize a "tapir"). So in 590BC, we can make the argument that "sus" = "tapir". Great, that makes sense. Problem solved.

But then, when Enos uses the word "sus" 170 years later, does the Nephite word "sus" mean "horse", or does it mean "tapir"?

Then, when Alma uses the word several hundred years later, does the Lamanite use of the word "sus" mean "horse", or "tapir"?

And so on.

I am willing to accept that Nephi used the most convenient word he knew and applied it to an unusual animal. But at that point, the word takes on a new meaning.

Whatever theory you have for the translation process, by the time Enos and Alma roll around, the word "sus" means "tapir", not "horse". If Moroni was doing the translation, then he would know that a "sus" is a "tapir"; he would never even know that the word "sus" once meant "horse" hundreds of years earlier and a half-world away. If Joseph is seeing pictures and images in his mind and translating loosely, then the word "sus" (or whatever word Nephi used in his original language) would be just as unusual as "cumom" or "curelom", and would be maintained in the text; or it could be translated correctly as "tapir", just as hundreds of other proper nouns were translated letter-for-letter. Even if Joseph Smith had no idea what a tapir was, he could have been told to spell it out just like a "cumom".

At some point (shortly after Nephi uses the word "sus" to describe a new animal), the word takes on a new meaning. And there is no way any translator could have known that the Reformed Egyptian word for "tapir" was once a word for "horse" back in the Old World hundreds or thousands of years earlier. Even if the translator did know about Nephi's mistake (or "loan shifting"), they would know that the word "sus" now has two meanings: in the Old World, it means "horse", and in the New World, it means "tapir". The divine interpreter would either not know that horses and tapirs were different animals, or they would only think they were tapirs.

This is the kind of knowledge that translators have when they make a translation (especially divine translators), and it would be silly for a translator to intentionally use the Old World definition (which they wouldn't even know, or would know wouldn't apply hundreds of years after the Lehite landfall) incorrectly throughout the text.

In order for the loan-shifting to work, Nephi would have to include the following detail in his record:

*Note to future readers: upon finding animals in the promised land, I encountered an odd, four-legged creature with which I was unfamiliar. It reminded me of an animal we used in the Land of Jerusalem which we called a "sus", only this one was smaller, and not ridden as we rode our suses. Thus, I have referred to this new, unusual animal as simply a "sus".

As you maintain this record, please do not substitute the actual name of this creature, but instead continue to refer to it as a "sus". And if you are ever translating this record into a language called "English", please call the animal a "horse", and do not use the actual English word for the strange animal which we saw.

Edited August 22, 2011 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

The research I have done reveals one startling thing I haven't seen in this discussion. I sought because tapirs look like pigs. I wondered if an observant Israelite would eat such an animal. It turns out that tapirs are not pigs and are not even related until very far back up the mammalian line. But they are related to horses and the other odd-toed ungulant, the rhinoceros.

Since observant Israelites would no more have eaten horses than pigs (they're both "unclean"), it seemed that, perhaps, this was a strike against their being Nephite food. And it is, but that does not mean anything against the "Book of Mormon 'horses' are tapirs" position because there is only one place where the Nephites could be said to look at their horses as food: when "horses" are on the list including "provisions" (3 Nephi 4:4). The most extensive information we have of Book of Mormon horses is in Alma, and the people involved are not Nephites (Alma 18, 20). The other places where horses are mentioned are either in quotations from Isaiah, etc., or as observations (e.g., they found "horses" among other native fauna in the Land of Promise, or the people gathered their herds and flocks and so on, including horses, in a defensive posture)—we have no particular reason to infer that these animals were there as food-on-the-hoof. Horses are frequently mentioned in conjunction with "chariots", so it is natural to assume a beast-of-burden role for them, although that's a reading-in, not an explicit statement.

In any case, the idea of tapirs/horses as food in the Book of Mormon is not too great a stretch. There were periods among the Nephites when keeping Kosher was not high on their list of priorities. It's tough to say whether the soon-to-be victorious Nephites of 3 Nephi 4 were truly obedient when fighting the Robbers' siege. I believe they were, or much more than at other times. But they were in a mid-way period between gross apostasies, so it not an easy call.

I'd be pleased to read you views on this point.

Lehi

Edited August 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I'm not prepared to say that they followed Kosher Laws. Though it is possible. When you're hungry dietary laws have a tendency to get reinterpreted.

Edited August 22, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

I disagree. Assuming the Book of Mormon is true, no matter which method or combination of methods of the translation of the plates one ascribes to, the most logical conclusion is that if JS didn't have an english word for what he saw or read, there would have been a another word like "curelom" or "cumom" in place of "horse".

OK, but what if the word on the plates was indeed 'horse'? Do we have any way of determining from the text alone if the word had experienced loan-shifting in the New World?

I think the existence of words like curelom and cumom in the BoM translation (and other new words as well) virtually precludes the possibility of loanshifting unless translation of the plates "by the gift and power of God" means he translated like people normally translate; God gave him the traveler's pocket guide to reformed Egyptian, etc. Something like that does not seem to easily fit the accounts but I admit, it is possible.

[jo1952]

The research I have done reveals one startling thing I haven't seen in this discussion. I sought because tapirs look like pigs. I wondered if an observant Israelite would eat such an animal. It turns out that tapirs are not pigs and are not even related until very far back up the mammalian line. But they are related to horses and the other odd-toed ungulant, the rhinoceros.

Since observant Israelites would no more have eaten horses than pigs (they're both "unclean"), it seemed that, perhaps, this was a strike against their being Nephite food. And it is, but that does not mean anything against the "Book of Mormon 'horses' are tapirs" position because there is only one place where the Nephites could be said to look at their horses as food: when "horses" are on the list including "provisions" (3 Nephi 4:4). The most extensive information we have of Book of Mormon horses is in Alma, and the people involved are not Nephites (Alma 18, 20). The other places where horses are mentioned are either in quotations from Isaiah, etc., or as observations (e.g., they found "horses" among other native fauna in the Land of Promise, or the people gathered their herds and flocks and so on, including horses, in a defensive posture)—we have no particular reason to infer that these animals were there as food-on-the-hoof. Horses are frequently mentioned in conjunction with "chariots", so it is natural to assume a beast-of-burden role for them, although that's a reading-in, not an explicit statement.

In any case, the idea of tapirs/horses as food in the Book of Mormon is not too great a stretch. There were periods among the Nephites when keeping Kosher was not high on their list of priorities. It's tough to say whether the soon-to-be victorious Nephites of 3 Nephi 4 were truly obedient when fighting the Robbers' siege. I believe they were, or much more than at other times. But they were in a mid-way period between gorses apostasy, so it not an easy call.

I'd be pleased to read you views on this point.

Lehi

Hi Lehi,

It appears your comments are logical and well thought out to me. BTW, I also don't have a problem with believing there were both horses and tapirs. That's because I believe in a literal movement of the land mass at the time of Peleg. As such, if there were horses around BEFORE Peleg, I have no problem believing that horses were surviving wherever they could before the land moved. Also, they could be easily explained for being in the Book of Mormon lands simply because when the people relocated at the confounding of language (even if the land did not move), they would have brought their horses with them. So right there are two reasonable explanations as to how they could have gotten here before the Spaniards brought their own. I think I am going to do some research and see if I can find what breed of horse the Spaniards brought. Frequently, IIRC, Spain is most famous for the Andalusian (though I don't know how ancient that breed is), which is entirely different from the Appaloosa or the Paints which are the breeds we most frequently associate with Indians. The Mustang is generally believed to be a result of a variety of mixed breeds and is associated with more recent American history.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 22, 2011 by jo1952

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

The horse evolved in the Americas. Walking over the Asia-Artic land bridge probably about some 10,000 years ago. Long before any Noah would have lived.

[LeSellers]

I think the existence of words like curelom and cumom in the BoM translation (and other new words as well) virtually precludes the possibility of loanshifting unless translation of the plates "by the gift and power of God" means he translated like people normally translate; God gave him the traveler's pocket guide to reformed Egyptian, etc. Something like that does not seem to easily fit the accounts but I admit, it is possible.

The thing about cureloms is that Moroni may have had no idea what they were. They were from the Jaredite period, so, reading the Gold Plates, Moroni just transliterated what he saw, and Joseph, even with the gift and power of God on his side, didn't have a chance at knowing what the animals were. They may have been extinct even in Moroni's time, so there was no English word available to him.

As for horses, the matter is very much different. Either the Nephite historians were talking about some form of equus or not. If they were, then "horse" was the correct translation, and no further explanation is necessary. If they were something-other-than-horses, then these animals had to fill the same role or some of the roles Israelites would have assigned to them, assuming they were still using these animals as Israelite horses. At this point, the discussion must become multipronged and difficult to follow, even for the theorist, and doubly so for the reader. There are a host of variables to account for, but they all involve the vagaries of linguistic transformations.

The word for "fish" (or a specific kind of fish) in Hindu was what allowed linguists to connect Hindu with European languages. In European languages, the related word meant thousands or a very large number. We can see the relationship because people have pointed it out. But ideas and the words we use to represent them are very slippery things. Turning a deer or a tapir into a horse is not at all hard to grasp when we consider the time element, the possible adaptations the Nephites had to make by moving from Jerusalem to Mesoamerica or the Great Lakes, or wherever they landed, and a multitude of similar things.

Anyone who rejects the "horse"=tapir/deer argument solely on the basis that a tapir or a deer is not a horse simply cannot have thought the question out very deeply. I believe this is what Dr. Dan'l was saying earlier. Linguistics is an art, to be sure, but it is one that is firmly based on empirical data and well defined rules and it has an extremely good track record. (That's one reason I admire Brian Stubb's work. He knows the value of "forensic linguistics".)

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Dup.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Dup.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Areabird]

If Tapirs could be used as plow animals, or cart pulling animals, etc., wouldn't they still be used that way today? There are a lot of poor areas in south america and central america where this would be a more affordable alternative to horses or motor vehicles. Why wouldn't we still see tapirs harnessed and working for man?

[Joseph Antley]

If Tapirs could be used as plow animals, or cart pulling animals, etc., wouldn't they still be used that way today? There are a lot of poor areas in south america and central america where this would be a more affordable alternative to horses or motor vehicles. Why wouldn't we still see tapirs harnessed and working for man?

Don't worry, people don't hardness hippos either.

[Jeff K.]

If Tapirs could be used as plow animals, or cart pulling animals, etc., wouldn't they still be used that way today? There are a lot of poor areas in south america and central america where this would be a more affordable alternative to horses or motor vehicles. Why wouldn't we still see tapirs harnessed and working for man?

If Tapirs could be used as plow animals, or cart pulling animals, etc., wouldn't they still be used that way today? There are a lot of poor areas in south america and central america where this would be a more affordable alternative to horses or motor vehicles. Why wouldn't we still see tapirs harnessed and working for man?

Not necessarily. Tapirs may have been deemed inefficient, may have only been used during a limited period of time, it may have been a failed experiment, or it might have fallen out of favor as the North African elephants were no longer used in warfare after the Carthagenian period.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Areabird]

Not necessarily. Tapirs may have been deemed inefficient, may have only been used during a limited period of time, it may have been a failed experiment, or it might have fallen out of favor as the North African elephants were no longer used in warfare after the Carthagenian period.

So they were efficient enough to be used to pull chariots into battle, but weren't efficient enough to continue using them to pull a plow?

[Joseph Antley]

So they were efficient enough to be used to pull chariots into battle, but weren't efficient enough to continue using them to pull a plow?

If you read the thread you're posting in, you'll see that no one who entertains the possibility that the Book of Mormon's "horses" were actually tapirs believe that these tapirs were pulling chariots, much less pulling them into battles.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 22 August 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

Not necessarily. Tapirs may have been deemed inefficient, may have only been used during a limited period of time, it may have been a failed experiment, or it might have fallen out of favor as the North African elephants were no longer used in warfare after the Carthagenian period.

So they were efficient enough to be used to pull chariots into battle, but weren't efficient enough to continue using them to pull a plow?

Not saying that so much as reflecting on the question of "how often" and "when". Vicunas or llamas for example?

Harness Training for llamas

[Jeff K.]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_beLd7MjrO5o/Sdvt2SmLgAI/AAAAAAAARLg/RDrruQwxWRY/s400/Clare%2520Riding.jpg' alt='Clare%2520Riding.jpg'>

llama trivia

[Robert F. Smith]

Not sure if you took the time to actually look this up, but while our English hippopotamus does derive from the Greek words meaning "river horse," in ancient Greek texts they were still often simply called "horses." One example is from Diodorus Siculus, the 1st century B.C. Greek historian. Diodorus gives a detailed description of the hippopotamus while describing peculiar Egyptian animals but simply calls it the hippos, or "horse," never the "river-horse."

People I know still call them hippos, in accordance with that Greek practice.

[Bernard Gui]

jo1952:

The horse evolved in the Americas. Walking over the Asia-Artic land bridge probably about some 10,000 years ago. Long before any Noah would have lived.

What were the topological and climactic conditions on that Asia-Arctic land bridge at that time?

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

Dup.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Bernard Gui:

Topography.

Gradual slopes.

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/alaskaC.html

Climate.

Cold and dry.

This broad land connection, with an area of about 1.4 million square kilometers, provided a route by which animals and plants could migrate between northeastern Asia and northwestern North America. Extensive additional lands were exposed north of Siberia. Many mammal species that evolved in Eurasia wandered into North America via the Bering land bridge during the Pleistocene (and earlier); fewer North American mammal species entered Eurasia via the land bridge, probably because of glacial ice barriers that developed numerous times across much of northern North America. In Alaska and Yukon, ice age mammal populations included bison, mammoths, camels, caribou, several kinds of horses and musk-oxen, wolves, brown bears, short-faced bears, American lions, badgers, saiga antelope, dall sheep, and black-footed ferrets. Most of these species have also been found in fossil assemblages of northeastern Asia. This mammal assemblage suggests a non-forested or minimally forested landscape with a vegetation cover that may have been more steppe-like in character than many modern tundra communities in Alaska, Yukon and northeastern Asia. Elimination of most trees may have resulted from aridity, and/or summers too cool for the survival of trees in much of Beringia. Beringia is defined as the region extending from the Kolyma River in Siberia, eastward across the Bering land bridge to unglaciated interior and northern Alaska, and Yukon. In general, trees require a July mean temperature of about 10-12 degrees C in order to survive and reproduce. Some high latitude conifer populations may be able to survive under somewhat cooler mean July temperatures, perhaps as cool as 8 degrees C.

Same source

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint