Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rick7475

Carbon Dating Horse Remains

224 posts in this topic

Archaeology is still in its infancy with regards to Mesoamerica. From the BoM itself the Maya could be the late descendents of Lehi. The Lehites arrived in the Americas some 400 years before the Maya established their civilization.

 

 

That may be so, but it still doesn't explain why we are able to find mounds of evidence for other large animals existing in the Americas during that period.  It would have to be an incredibly unfortunate odds.  On the other hand we are able to find large amounts of evidence for the existence of jaguars which are not mentioned in the BoM and were not domesticated.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think that a careful examination will show that where horses provided the greatest benefit was in the most open areas like the deserts and prairies and open forests.  Those in the steep rugged mountains (Andes) the jungle areas (Central America) not so much so.  Can you imagine trying to ride a horse through those jungles.  If I remember right the native population of the eastern US did not use horses in the denser forested area.  If you have ever ridden in a densely forested area you would understand.

 

I agree that horses are more advantageous in open prairies and forests, but that doesn't mean they still didn't provide significant benefits to other areas.  There are low lands in some of the commonly proposed BoM areas in which the Spaniards were able to slaughter the natives with the superior advantage of the horse (even after the initial shock of seeing the them for the first time).  Horses would have provided a significant agricultural advantage, and jungle trails could have been enlarged to allow for their passage.  After they were introduced to present-day Mexico by the Spaniards were they only used as a food source because they provided no other advantages?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that horses are more advantageous in open prairies and forests, but that doesn't mean they still didn't provide significant benefits to other areas.  There are low lands in some of the commonly proposed BoM areas in which the Spaniards were able to slaughter the natives with the superior advantage of the horse (even after the initial shock of seeing the them for the first time).  Horses would have provided a significant agricultural advantage, and jungle trails could have been enlarged to allow for their passage.  After they were introduced to present-day Mexico by the Spaniards were they only used as a food source because they provided no other advantages?

 

The initial shock of the horse, or men riding them with steel breast plates and helmets with firearms shooting at them?  

1

Share this post


Link to post

As Anijen mentioned, there are a variety of external evidences that the Mongols used horses.  To me this actually hurts the case for the BoM, where is the mention of horses in the ancient Mayan writings?  While scientists can't translate every ancient language in the New World, they are able to read a number of them and to date there has never been any writing discovered indicating the existence of Pre-Comombian horses.

It hurts the case for the Book of Mormon because there is only primary evidence of horse bone instead of carvings, bridles, etc...?

2

Share this post


Link to post

That may be so, but it still doesn't explain why we are able to find mounds of evidence for other large animals existing in the Americas during that period.  It would have to be an incredibly unfortunate odds.  On the other hand we are able to find large amounts of evidence for the existence of jaguars which are not mentioned in the BoM and were not domesticated.

I don't believe the horse was common. We have tentative evidence for the horse in the America's before Columbus, but after the 10,000 year mark for its presumed extinction here. Really, the scattering of the bones by predators makes finding any bones is a hit or miss proposition. So any find would just be indicative of its rarity. At this point I can't say definitely the horse was here in BoM times, but I can't exclude it either.

 

Barley was just relatively recently discovered to be in American south west. For many years it was considered an anachronism. So I'll withhold judgement for the time being.

Edited by thesometimesaint
1

Share this post


Link to post

It hurts the case for the Book of Mormon because there is only primary evidence of horse bone instead of carvings, bridles, etc...?

 

So how many examples of bridles have been found in ancient Rome?  I tried to find some examples on Google, but was not successful. It seems there may be metal bits in evidence; they used them to determine the size of ancient horse heads. Most designs were taken from artwork of various kinds. 

 

Exactly what should we find as evidence?  Are there reasons that we might not find bridles, saddles, etc. It would be nice if we were realistic in our approach to the topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As Anijen mentioned, there are a variety of external evidences that the Mongols used horses.  To me this actually hurts the case for the BoM, where is the mention of horses in the ancient Mayan writings?  While scientists can't translate every ancient language in the New World, they are able to read a number of them and to date there has never been any writing discovered indicating the existence of Pre-Comombian horses.

 

And please tell us how many records are extant from the pre-Classic period.  This is truly a tiresome argument (There is no record of.... etc) based on ignorance of the facts.

 

Where are you getting these arguments?

Edited by cdowis
1

Share this post


Link to post

Let's think about this for a minute.  We have no archeological proof that horses existed in the America's during the time of the BoM, but we have found numerous and presumably much more difficult examples of their existence thousands of years earlier.  

 

We have numerous examples of horses in ancient art throughout the world wherever they were domesticated, but none in Pre-Columbia America.  We do however have countless examples of art depicting every other large animal existing in the Americas.  

 

 

This is the third time that I have made this request on this particular assertion, but no reponse so far.

 

Please give us the dating and location of these "example of art".  Are these examples in the BOM time period and location.

 

This is a formal CFR, please.

 

PS Where are you getting these arguments?

Edited by cdowis
0

Share this post


Link to post

duplicate

Edited by cdowis
0

Share this post


Link to post

The initial shock of the horse, or men riding them with steel breast plates and helmets with firearms shooting at them?  

 

It's a well known fact that the aboriginal people had never seen or heard of horses before the Spanish arrived.  This fact played a significant role in the abiity of small Spanish armies being able to defeat the much larger Incan and Aztec armies consisting of 10,000's. Of course guns and steel were major advantages, but the intial shock of seeing the horses created fear and panic in the Inca a scene that was repeated over and over when the natives first encountered the conquistadors mounted on the fearsome horses..

 

Spanish horses were instrumental in the conquest of the New World. Neither the Aztec nor the Inca had ever seen humans riding animals before; the psychological impact of mounted troops was tremendous.....On the morning of November 16, 1532, a surprise charge of just 37 Spanish horses, concealed in the Inca town of Cajamarca, unleashed an orgy of bloodshed. Europeans had known for centuries that foot soldiers stood a good chance against cavalry if they stood firm and repelled the outnumbered mounted troops. But the Inca had no experience of this, nor could they have read about others' experiences, since they were geographically isolated and had no written records from which to learn. Instead, they panicked and tried to flee, allowing the outnumbered conquistadors to run through them with great speed and efficiency

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's a well known fact that the aboriginal people had never seen or heard of horses before the Spanish arrived.  This fact played a significant role in the abiity of small Spanish armies being able to defeat the much larger Incan and Aztec armies consisting of 10,000's. Of course guns and steel were major advantages, but the intial shock of seeing the horses created fear and panic in the Inca a scene that was repeated over and over when the natives first encountered the conquistadors mounted on the fearsome horses..

 

As mentioned in the citation you shared, it's not just that the natives had never seen horses but they'd never seen humans riding animals before, hence their military disadvantage. But also the lack of large beasts of burden meant that their culture and technology developed differently from those societies (such as in Europe) who did use large animals for work or transportation.

 

Whether or not any horse bones are ever found anywhere close to the time of the Book of Mormon--and they haven't yet--you'd still have to account for the natives not using them or any other animals as beasts of burden. Yes, I know the llama-alpaca-guanaco-vicuna family was used as a pack animal among the Incas, but I don't believe anyone is making a case for an Andean setting for the Book of Mormon. And even then, the Incas did not ride on the animals.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It hurts the case for the Book of Mormon because there is only primary evidence of horse bone instead of carvings, bridles, etc...?

 

Perhaps you're being facetious here, but there is no primary evidence for the existence of horses in the Americas post 8-10,000 BC that has been accepted by the general scientific community.  In fact there isn't even secondary evidence, unless you include the BoM.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Which leads me to believe that the Lehites didn't use the horse as transportation. Just as today we generally don't ride cows.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Which leads me to believe that the Lehites didn't use the horse as transportation. Just as today we generally don't ride cows.

 

Does the text of the Book of Mormon indicate to you that they used animals as a means of transportation?

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's a well known fact that the aboriginal people had never seen or heard of horses before the Spanish arrived.  This fact played a significant role in the abiity of small Spanish armies being able to defeat the much larger Incan and Aztec armies consisting of 10,000's. Of course guns and steel were major advantages, but the intial shock of seeing the horses created fear and panic in the Inca a scene that was repeated over and over when the natives first encountered the conquistadors mounted on the fearsome horses..

 

Formal CFR that the aboriginal people had never seen or heard of horses before the Spanish arrived.  What you offered is nothing more than the authors assertions with no references.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Does the text of the Book of Mormon indicate to you that they used animals as a means of transportation?

 

No. They are convenient as numerous civilizations can attest to, but strictly not necessary. Everything from the Pyramides of Egypt  to the Great Wall of China were built without the horse.

0

Share this post


Link to post

No. They are convenient as numerous civilizations can attest to, but strictly not necessary. Everything from the Pyramides of Egypt  to the Great Wall of China were built without the horse.

 

I wasn't asking about horses.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is the third time that I have made this request on this particular assertion, but no reponse so far.

 

Please give us the dating and location of these "example of art".  Are these examples in the BOM time period and location.

 

This is a formal CFR, please.

 

PS Where are you getting these arguments?

 

This is the first I've seen of your requests, I will post later.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is the first I've seen of your requests, I will post later.

 

A professor in Latin American Studies has provided a really great resource for foundational literature in the field (one of my degrees is in Latin American Studies). One deals with the introduction of the horse:

 

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/colonial/horse-america.pdf

 

A better CFR would be aimed at finding a single source that indicates that Native Americans were familiar with the horse before the arrival of the Spanish.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't asking about horses.

 

You can ride tiger, but it is the getting off part that is problematic. ;)

 

But seriously animals used as transportation has many advantages. The disadvantages come when we're talking about the limited space ancient cities were confined to.

0

Share this post


Link to post

You can ride tiger, but it is the getting off part that is problematic. ;)

 

But seriously animals used as transportation has many advantages. The disadvantages come when we're talking about the limited space ancient cities were confined to.

 

So, again, are you saying that the peoples of the Book of Mormon had no beasts of burden used for transportation or otherwise?

0

Share this post


Link to post

So, again, are you saying that the peoples of the Book of Mormon had no beasts of burden used for transportation or otherwise?

 

We simply don't know. We find then convenient. The Lehites may not have. If you have a ready supply of human labor able and/or willing to do the work then using such animals isn't necessary. IE; The Pyramides of Egypt and the Great Wall of China were built with only humans as beasts of transportation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

We simply don't know. We find then convenient. The Lehites may not have. If you have a ready supply of human labor able and/or willing to do the work then using such animals isn't necessary. IE; The Pyramides of Egypt and the Great Wall of China were built with only humans as beasts of transportation.

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the text is referring to when it mentions horses and chariots associated with transportation?

0

Share this post


Link to post

My reading of the text doesn't do that. I see the horse as very uncommon and when used at all was eaten.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My reading of the text doesn't do that. I see the horse as very uncommon and when used at all was eaten.

Here, let me add a few words to Alma 18 for you that more closely match your description:   :acute:

 

 

 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding ON thy ahorses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses MEATS and UPON chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a bgreat cfeast OF HORSE appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.