Book Of Mormon Archaeology

[Anijen]

Having said that, has anyone read the Book "Voices from the Dust" by David Calderwood?

http://voices-dust.c...oices-dust.html

Yes. I do not disagree with Brant often, in fact this is the only time that I know of. He has written a review which I thought was a bit harsh, but I do admit my bias. I have known Brother Calderwood for some time and enjoy his kind friendship. I think Voices from the Dust is an excellent book. It is wonderful to read from some of the primary documents which there is plenty. IIRC the main issue Brant had was that voices from the dust failed to commit to any particular theory. I agree with Brant in that I too would have liked to see a commitment to Mesoamerican theory from Calderwoods book, however that being said it is still an excellent book.

Oh I did disagree a long time ago with Brant on another issue (macaws and elephants), but I have since educated myself and I am firmly on his side on that issue.

[altersteve]

then why has it been so easy to identify Biblical archeology? Why does it seem the only problems lie with Book of Mormon Archeology?

I'm no archaeologist, but my understanding is that this is because, with the Bible, we already know where all of these places are. We know a lot about ancient Israel, and next to nothing about ancient Mesoamerica. The Bible took place in a culture and location where we have extensive records of history outside the Bible itself. We have records of Jerusalem and other such biblical places, and biblical figures and some biblical events are thus generally accepted as actual people and events from history. However, with the Book of Mormon, almost no records exist from people who actually lived there other than the Book of Mormon itself. All we have to work with, for now, is what the Book of Mormon says and what we currently do know about ancient Mesoamerica, which, again, isn't much.

Hope that makes sense.

[stevedallas]

Well, compare modern Israel and Palestine with mesoamerica.

Do we have the ancient names, do we have ancient records? Basically are we able to identify ancient cities and countries with their modern couterparts? Jerusalem, Babylon, Jerico, etc.

What about the geography and climate differences -- desert vs. tropical jungles. Do you understand what happens to perishable artifacts under the different conditions?

What about the money spent on archeology. We have Israel and the entire christian nations in Europe and America dedicating their collective resources to researching the Bible. Both Bible believers and atheist scholars devote their lives to this research.

They have the guidance of ancient records.

Now compare that to mesoamerican archeology -- tropical jungles, no records, few resources, the BOM is in teh preclassic period. The BOM itself gives scant information on the culture and secular history of its own people, much less the surrounding races.

The nonLDS archeologists have no interest in a book delivered by an angel - they have not even bothered to read it. But atheists feel comfortable exploring the Bible. They can simply ignore the divine element of the Bible, but the BOM gives no such cover -- if it is historical, then God and angels exist.

Why would an atheist want to investigate a book delivered by an angel? Even Michael Coe, the most "knowledgeable" among archeologists, basically admits that he has not bothered to read it, his knowledge coming from an antimormon book.

Thank you, but your response it a little too simplistic. For example, the say that Central America is jungles is simply not accurate. True, there ARE jungles, but there are also mountains, sea coasts, and large lakes (with no jungles). Were I the leader of a group of people, I would not have chosen the jungles, I would have chosen the coasts, lakes and mountains in which to live.

Though your point has some merit, to discount the lack of findings on jungles is unfair. In the mountains of Honduras, for example, the climate is wonderful, the forests (not jungles) are full of pines, and the game and fish plentiful.

[ERayR]

Thank you, but your response it a little too simplistic. For example, the say that Central America is jungles is simply not accurate. True, there ARE jungles, but there are also mountains, sea coasts, and large lakes (with no jungles). Were I the leader of a group of people, I would not have chosen the jungles, I would have chosen the coasts, lakes and mountains in which to live.

Though your point has some merit, to discount the lack of findings on jungles is unfair. In the mountains of Honduras, for example, the climate is wonderful, the forests (not jungles) are full of pines, and the game and fish plentiful.

You make the most common of errors, projecting what you would have done onto an ancient situation. You have projected without giving a thought to the dynamics of the group and their circumstances. Even two contemporaries of today do not reach the same conclusions. Perhaps they were being persued (or thought they were) by someone with a stronger force. Getting lost in the jungle might seem inviting. There are many scenarios which can be played out which would cause different choices than that which you think you might have made.

There are abundant ruins in these jungle areas that are yet to be explored. Many more than have been explored.

[Brant Gardner]

then why has it been so easy to identify Biblical archeology? Why does it seem the only problems lie with Book of Mormon Archeology?

Three things.

1) There is a tradition that links the sites to ancient locations. That isn't foolproof. While there are several places where the location of a biblical site is known, there are others that have no certain designation. It isn't easy to connect texts to history, and even more difficult where you don't have an acknowledged beginning point.

2) Texts. The Old World was much more literate in many more languages and for a much longer time that Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerica we don't get very many texts until after Book of Mormon times. The longest Maya text from Book of Mormon times was discovered only a year or two ago and still cannot be read (it is in an earlier form of the glyphs).

3) Iconographic tradition. We have continuous artistic histories in the Old World that allow us to identify Jewish or Christian iconographies. In the case of Christian iconographies, they were adapted from other traditions and began later than the Book of Mormon. Assuming that we "ought" to find Christian evidence in the New World, we have no idea what a New World Christian iconography would look like. Combine this with the very scarce iconographic data from sites in the Grijalva valley, and there are simply too little data.

[Brant Gardner]

I have known Brother Calderwood for some time and enjoy his kind friendship.

It always makes a difference if you know a person. Unfortunately, when it comes to using texts in support of the Book of Mormon, I am extremely conservative and I know too much about the way the Spaniards constructed their reports. Brother Calderwood's data comes mostly from South American, which isn't my specialty. I know the Mesoamerican data much better, and it is on the basis of those texts that I suggest a lot of caution in the way we use Spanish chronicles. They are complex documents and cannot be used at face value. That is much clearer in Central Mexico where there are more documents to compare so the differences are more obvious.

[Anijen]

It always makes a difference if you know a person. Unfortunately, when it comes to using texts in support of the Book of Mormon, I am extremely conservative and I know too much about the way the Spaniards constructed their reports. Brother Calderwood's data comes mostly from South American, which isn't my specialty. I know the Mesoamerican data much better, and it is on the basis of those texts that I suggest a lot of caution in the way we use Spanish chronicles. They are complex documents and cannot be used at face value. That is much clearer in Central Mexico where there are more documents to compare so the differences are more obvious.

Exactly right, I can see a heavy influence of the Spanish and the church in many of these writings. You are a also correct that Calderwood is more focused on South America, which I believe was perhaps a place visited by the Savior but not where the Book of Mormon takes place. I have expressed my thoughts with him about this and he acknowledges the strength of a Mesoamerican model.

[stevedallas]

You make the most common of errors, projecting what you would have done onto an ancient situation. You have projected without giving a thought to the dynamics of the group and their circumstances. Even two contemporaries of today do not reach the same conclusions. Perhaps they were being persued (or thought they were) by someone with a stronger force. Getting lost in the jungle might seem inviting. There are many scenarios which can be played out which would cause different choices than that which you think you might have made.

There are abundant ruins in these jungle areas that are yet to be explored. Many more than have been explored.

I would dare think I am more intelligent than folks like Nephi, etc. No one would choose the heat and insects of the jungle over the cool climate and game of the mountains, especially one being led by God, wouldn't you agree?

[stevedallas]

I should tell you, I have lived in Honduras and Panama and visited Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Belize'

[KevinG]

I would dare think I am more intelligent than folks like Nephi, etc. No one would choose the heat and insects of the jungle over the cool climate and game of the mountains, especially one being led by God, wouldn't you agree?

There were those who felt Brigham made a mistake stopping in the Salt Lake Valley as opposed to moving all the way to California.

Jungles are fairly rich envioronments for food and materials. The mosquitos not so swell, but who knows what drove them to live there other than the resources at hand at that time in history?

[LeSellers]

There is a tradition that links the sites to ancient locations. That isn't foolproof. While there are several places where the location of a biblical site is known, there are others that have no certain designation. It isn't easy to connect texts to history, and even more difficult where you don't have an acknowledged beginning point.

I use the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, near Naples, Italy, as examples.

Ercolano (the modern Italian city) sits directly atop the ruins of the ancient city, and excavations must end because further undercutting of the relatively soft material will destroy the new town. It was not "lost", yet no one searched these ruins (not even plunderers) for centuries. Even with what I call "direct, continuous observation", the old commune was lost to humanity. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, a couple of locals accidentally found it looking for something else.

We knew exactly where Pompeii was, but for 1700 years it lay "misplaced'. Even then, with the knowledge that the original city was just where this new discovery was made, there was some dispute about what they'd found. No one alive in 1740 knew where Pompeii was except for the indisputable record of its existence, and a precise location as recorded by Pliny, etc.

Is it any wonder that Book of Mormon sites are undiscovered or unidentified when, quite unlike either Italian locale, we don't know where they are, nor, exactly, what we are looking for, when the places themselves are not plotted on any map in modern times? And if, as I suppose, the destruction of 3 Nephi was largely volcanic and, perhaps, meteoric, with much lost in the sea and buried deep beneath the surface, why should anyone reasonably assume we'd have even minor idications of a "Nephite" civilization laid out before our eyes?

We know, from biblical references that there were lions in ix Judea, but it was only a decade or so ago that anyone discovered a lion bone. Archeology is not a quick science.

Troy was lost until Schliemann decided to look for it—most people assumed it was a fable, not even a myth. Schliemann was not a scientist, he was an amateur Hellenist. Scientists refused to accept his discoveries for many years. (I can't recall if he lived to see his efforts acknowledged by the scholarly community. I'll have to look it up one day.) Archeologists are not quick scientists.

Lehi

[ERayR]

I would dare think I am more intelligent than folks like Nephi, etc. No one would choose the heat and insects of the jungle over the cool climate and game of the mountains, especially one being led by God, wouldn't you agree?

Again it would depend on the circumstances. I am with you. As for me I would take the pine forests and clear streams every time unless there was some mortal danger in doing so. From the number of ruins scattered through the jungles down there a lot of people, for some reason, didn't make the same choices I would have.

IINephi 5:1-5

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cry much unto the Lord my God, because of the ^aanger of my brethren.

2 But behold, their ^aanger did increase against me, insomuch that they did seek to take away my life.

3 Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to ^arule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to ^brule over this people.

4 Now I do not write upon these plates all the words which they murmured against me. But it sufficeth me to say, that they did seek to take away my life.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord did ^awarn me, that I, ^bNephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.

Edited October 27, 2011 by ERayR

[Brant Gardner]

Again it would depend on the circumstances. I am with you. As for me I would take the pine forests and clear streams every time unless there was some mortal danger in doing so. From the number of ruins scattered through the jungles down there a lot of people, for some reason, didn't make the same choices I would have.

Sorenson's model places the city of Nephi in highland Guatemala, which is absolutely beautiful and the best climate I have ever lived in. If you are wondering if Nephi would have agreed with you, it is quite likely that he did!

[altersteve]

I would dare think I am more intelligent than folks like Nephi, etc. No one would choose the heat and insects of the jungle over the cool climate and game of the mountains, especially one being led by God, wouldn't you agree?

They obviously prospered in the jungles, so God must have known what He was doing.

[stevedallas]

They obviously prospered in the jungles, so God must have known what He was doing.

what makes you believe they were in the jungles? I have been the jungles in Central America.

[altersteve]

what makes you believe they were in the jungles? I have been the jungles in Central America.

I believe the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, and Mesoamerican cities are hidden deep in the jungles of Central America (which is why many of them have not yet been found), yet it was one of the most advanced civilizations of the ancient world. Not all of the Book of Mormon, however, takes place in jungled areas.

[ldsfaqs]

Hey cryophil.....

Just a recommendation. If you are looking to objectively judge the Restoration, you can't simply look at BOM "archeology". You need to look at all the scholarship on the BOM from all the related sciences. More importantly, you need to study all the things that provide evidence for the Restoration itself.

If you're "limiting" yourself to simply wanting to see some south american temple that has an inscription of "Lehi was here" and such, then you're seriously limiting yourself. While there has come out a lot of evidences related to the BOM, especially for the last 30 years, unless you become an expert in the subject, you're missing what it takes to validate Restoration claims, including the BOM.

Go to an LDS bookstore and/or the library and start studying LDS scholarship on the matter.

I've already given you one book and dvd you can start learning from in my previous post. But, there are many other kinds from all the different sciences and related materials.

[stevedallas]

I believe the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, and Mesoamerican cities are hidden deep in the jungles of Central America (which is why many of them have not yet been found), yet it was one of the most advanced civilizations of the ancient world. Not all of the Book of Mormon, however, takes place in jungled areas.

If they have not been found, how do you know?

[Brant Gardner]

If they have not been found, how do you know?

Actually, the best statement is that locations are known, but not excavated. The unexcavated aren't published because no one wants to encourage the inevitable looting. The basic surveys indicate that there are significantly more sites to be excavated than have been. There is still much to learn (and likely more surprises like San Bartolo).

[Freedom]

They banned cryophil!! but I was finding his comments so entertaining. I think the fundamental problem that all religions people have, mormon or otherwise, is the assumption that the scriptures are somehow protected from any errors such as cultural influences, linguistic limitations, or human bias. Although we Mormons are willing to accept such faults in bible to support the doctrine of the apostasy, we (the royal we) tend not to apply the same standards to the Book of Mormon which leads to the false conclusions. I read a book about Joseph Stalin that was written about 25 years ago, my son is having to defend him as a creator of a great civilization. It was interesting to see the unintended biases in the text written by a renown scholar who wrote the book during the cold war. The book became dated the moment the walls came down because it was written for an audience that no longer exists. No matter how skilled the author may have been, he was writing about history through the lens of the late 1980s. I am of the opinion that many of the passages we now consider scripture were not intended to be scripture; they just became so because of tradition. We do not hold out general conference talks on the same level as sections in the D&C and I believe that most of the New Testament did not go through much scrutiny by an authorized quorum to ensure it's doctrinal purity. But we have it non-the-less. They are records written by humans burdened with many shortcomings but they have what we need. But the critics want a type of book that even the greatest minds on the planet could not create. In my opinion.

[stevedallas]

Actually, the best statement is that locations are known, but not excavated. The unexcavated aren't published because no one wants to encourage the inevitable looting. The basic surveys indicate that there are significantly more sites to be excavated than have been. There is still much to learn (and likely more surprises like San Bartolo).

CFR please

[Kevin Christensen]

CFR please

http://en.wikipedia....%28Maya_site%29

"Another part of the western mural depicts three scenes from the life of the maize god and the coronation of a king, showing divine right to rule coming from the gods, and providing evidence that the Maya had full-fledged monarchies centuries earlier than previously thought."

Mark Wright has observed that the depiction of the coronation of a king on a tower is contemporary with the Mosiah account of a coronation on a tower, though the site is outside of Nephite territory.

Also, back in September, Mark Wright posted the following comment in response to a discussion about the recent Michael Coe interviews.

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how bogglingly complex the ancient political landscape was in ancient Mesoamerica should download the following map.

http://mayagis.smv.o...%20NOV%2008.pdf

or go to http://mayagis.smv.o...e_maya_area.htm and scroll down and click the "Very Large Maya map" link.

It's a massive file, but worth the wait. The more you enlarge it, more and more sites appear. There are thousands upon thousands of sites on this map, and these are just the ones we've taken the time to name (and we've only excavated a few dozen of them, and of those, we've only done limited excavation. There are no sites that have been completely excavated). Each polity was essentially an independent player, with it's own rulers, gods, and religions. To deny that there were Nephites because they didn't leave an impact on the larger civilization is naive. There were thousands of cities there, most of which never had any impact on each other. Only two major players in the Classic period (AD 250-900), Tikal and Calakmul, had what could be considered "widespread" influence. That, of course, does not mean that Palenque or Copan never existed (or any of the other thousands of sites). What it means is that Palenque and Copan, like 99.99% of other sites, did not have widespread influence on the larger Mesoamerican culture. To demand that Nephites did, based on a narrow reading of the text, is unfounded.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 28, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[LeSellers]

CFR please

Okeh, I'll call for references, but you can do it yourself. It's easy.

CFR.

See how simple it is?

Lehi

[Brant Gardner]

CFR please

I was repeating some information from a Mesoamerican mailing list I follow (Aztlan). It isn't information that should surprise anyone, however. That area isn't as populated as it once was and it is very close to having any hill have a pyramid underneath it (The Peten is quite flat--think Kansas with more trees).

If your question is about San Bartolo, it was the chance discovery of paintings that show techniques, complex mythology and a written language much earlier than expected (and in Book of Mormon times for once).

For ways that new technologies are showing things not seen even in areas that have been excavated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/science/11maya.html?pagewanted=all

One report of newer finds (and there are lots more-- more than anyone can afford to uncover:

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/06/2011/new-mayan-sites-discovered-in-the-yucatan

Once of things that Mark Wright pointed out to me is that the literature tends to neglect non-Maya living side by side with the Maya. In once case, there was a non-Maya city right in between Calakmul and Tikal (who had an intense rivalry for generations and many wars). Neither cities texts mention the city in the middle, even though they not only knew it, but had to pass it (or intentionally bypass it) on their way to war with the other city.

There is still a lot to learn about the area.

Did that answer the question?

[Brant Gardner]

Also, back in September, Mark Wright posted the following comment in response to a discussion about the recent Michael Coe interviews.

Yes, that was another one that I semi-remembered, but forgot where to find. Thanks for posting that - as a reminder to me!