Bows in the Book of Mormon

[clarkgoble]

Just to add to the above. Robert had critiqued my use of bow as "theoretic linguistic drift" rather than actual. That's not entirely true. I had a few minutes to do a search and I found several examples of atlatls being called bows.While the Spanish appear to have primarily called them javelins, arrows or spears with throwers occasionally they related them to bow like implements. Zella Nuttall in The Atlatl or Spear-Thrower of the Ancient Mexicans give a few examples of early Spanish conquerers and others giving their descriptions.

The first example is from the famous western historian of the 19th century H. H. Bancroft who speaking of his sources said that although "some writers mention a bellesta, a sort of cross-bow, to launch the javelin, he had not found any description of its form or the manner of using it." (174, quoting Bancroft, Native Races, vol. 2  p. 410 emphasis mine) On page 182 they note that in a plate of images of atlatls one is described as a bow.

An other example is on page 177. There the atlatls are described as throwers throwing spears and arrows. “The Anonymous Conqueror describes “spears thrown by a cross-bow made of an other piece of wood. These spears were tipped with obsidian or with very sharp, strong fish bones”

My point is just to note that there is evidence of calling these crossbows or bows. So the Book of Mormon use of bow could easily be seen as falling into that tradition. Further the linguistic drift I mentioned is not merely theoretic.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

................................................... 

Quote

You again miss the point, which is that you make easy objections to the sort of stupidity which is to be expected in each generation's conception of the ancient world, and you end up making your own set of false assumptions by using the KJV as a reliable indicator.

I've honestly read this paragraph a few times trying to understand what you're saying but I can't seem to get it. Any chance you could rephrase that?

I thought that you understod that the KJV is an English translation published in 1611, following several earlier English translaltons of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.  Since that KJV translation is unreliable, all sorts of false assumptions can be drawn from it -- for example, those you make.

Quote

Strong evidence rarely guarantees anything. I suppose we could try and quantify that difference using bayesian methods but I'm pretty skeptical of such things..............................

I think apologetics is extremely important. ...................................Now it appears you don't particularly care about apologetics, which is of course fine. But then I'm not sure what the point is since I'm addressing the apologetic nature of the texts for a mainstream audience.

I think we each should prefer straight science, and (as I have said) let the chips fall where they may.  Not that the non-Mormon professionals always agree with one another.  They clearly don't on many things.  However, I am not sure what "apologetics" is in your view.  You seem to include any piece which has anything at all positive to say about the case for Mormonism.  Is there anything you see as not-apologetics?  Or do you just want good, instead of bad apologetics?  You are aware, I hope, that in some quarters, "apologetics" is automatically held in contempt no matter its content.  Do you consider this piece by me apologetic?  “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/74773355/Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya , or at http://www.bmaf.org/node/386 .  Notice how it includes personal conversations between me and the non-Mormon experts.  Notice how it includes a variety of learned points of view.

Quote

I just think you are incorrect here. Certainly you don't have much by way of evidence for preclassical bows being likely in the region.

You would thus likely say that if the last example of mammoth bones in the Western hemisphere were found in 6,000 BC, then that is automatically the last possible date for a mammoth in the Western hemisphere?  Is that how archeology works?  Or do we extrapolate in reasonable ways from such finds -- as the non-Mormon experts do?  So too with the bow & arrow:  Do we automatically assume that the projectile points most likely used with a bow ca the time of Christ in the Western hemisphere are the earliest actual occurrences?  Or do we extrapolate that such is the possible point from which we can reasonably argue introduction at an earlier period?  How much earlier?  We don't really know, but (by analogy) we might want to compare the few examples we have of early human evidence in the Americas:  Each dated location only tells us that man was already in that area, whether a century earlier, or perhaps more -- but not likely much more, until further evidence is available.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that you understod that the KJV is an English translation published in 1611, following several earlier English translaltons of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.  Since that KJV translation is unreliable, all sorts of false assumptions can be drawn from it -- for example, those you make.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "those you make" but the nature of the KJV is key to my argument. I think, largely in line with Brant Gardner, that Joseph did a loose translation utilizing the KJV errors and all. So that many KJV errors propagated into the Book of Mormon. So I think the KJV brass becomes the BoM brass. Yet the word translated as brass by the KJV is usually translated by other translations as bronze. The point is that we can't necessarily trust the words in Joseph's translation in a straightforward way due to the phraseology dependence on the KJV. Of course it's a bit more complex than that. For names that occur in the KJV it appears the KJV phrases are used whereas for other names typically it uses it's own transliteration scheme.

Anyway, I confess I'm still confused at what your argument was. But never mind.

Quote

I think we each should prefer straight science, and (as I have said) let the chips fall where they may.  Not that the non-Mormon professionals always agree with one another.  They clearly don't on many things.  However, I am not sure what "apologetics" is in your view.  You seem to include any piece which has anything at all positive to say about the case for Mormonism.

I think you need to deal with the argument both for and against your position. Far too many articles on the Book of Mormon don't do this and some misrepresent sources. That's true of good science as well as apologetics.

To me apologetics was the primary mission of FARMS back in the day. It's true there always were some problems and some papers/reviews that I think needed at minimum big edits or even not getting into the journals. However by and large the goal was to engage with critic arguments, and explain why it was rational to believe in the Book of Mormon. Some of our arguments were stronger than others. For instance while I think the tapir argument is strong especially if it's a king's spirit-animal I recognize it's harder to make the case for those who are having a faith crisis accentuated by the problem of horses in the Book of Mormon. Good apologetics first off engages fairly and evenly with the evidence both pro and con but makes the case for why one can rationally believe. That of course won't resolve a faith crisis. But hopefully it creates a space where anxiety is held at bay long enough to make it easier for the spirit to convert.

If something isn't apologetics but is merely presenting the history of the Book of Mormon then it's even more not less important to fairly represent the arguments and the relative strengths of the various positions. It should be written in such a way that the reasonably expected audience won't come away with a misunderstanding of the arguments in question. To do otherwise is pure sophistry.

Quote

You would thus likely say that if the last example of mammoth bones in the Western hemisphere were found in 6,000 BC, then that is automatically the last possible date for a mammoth in the Western hemisphere? 

I wouldn't say based only on the last find alone. I'd look a the evidence of bones, the counter-arguments, the number of finds and why most scholars think mammoths went extinct thousands of years ago. I think the arguments there are pretty compelling to. We can take that topic up next if you want. 

Quote

Is that how archeology works?  Or do we extrapolate in reasonable ways from such finds -- as the non-Mormon experts do?  So too with the bow & arrow:  Do we automatically assume that the projectile points most likely used with a bow ca the time of Christ in the Western hemisphere are the earliest actual occurrences?

We deal with the evidence and draw inferences from the evidence. If you represent my argument as simply "this is the earliest find therefore nothing came after" you're really misreading me.

Again, if you think there's a reasonable argument for bows earlier I'm all ears. Thus far I just don't think you've made solid arguments. The arguments you did make when I checked just didn't seem to hold up. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You again attribute to me positions which I do not take, .....

So, from your POV, I must be a "true believer" in some failed ideology or POV.  

I can only comment upon what you write.  If you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to support your position, well . . .

[clarkgoble]

BTW Robert, I wouldn't say that paper is apologetic.

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You would thus likely say that if the last example of mammoth bones in the Western hemisphere were found in 6,000 BC, then that is automatically the last possible date for a mammoth in the Western hemisphere?  Is that how archeology works?  

Once again, an appeal to ignorance.   "Just because no mammoth bones have been found, doesn't mean there aren't any after 6000 BC."  (And thus, the implication being, there are such.)  Really now.  

There's still hope for bigfoot and aliens driving UFOs.

Mormons can make the case for the Book of Mormon without resort to an appeal to ignorance.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Once again, an appeal to ignorance.   "Just because no mammoth bones have been found, doesn't mean there aren't any after 6000 BC."  (And thus, the implication being, there are such.)  Really now.  

There's still hope for bigfoot and aliens driving UFOs.

Mormons can make the case for the Book of Mormon without resort to an appeal to ignorance.

So you are going to fault non-Mormon scholars for concluding from those latest dated bones with erroneously concluding (on the basis of statistical likelihood) that the last mammoth in the Western hemisphere died later that 6000 BC?  Really?  Talk about an appeal to ignorance.  No wonder you are obsessed by sasquatch and alien UFOs.

“Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm ,
“Extinct woolly mammoths and ancient American horses may have been grazing the North American steppe for several thousand years longer than previously thought,” i.e., perhaps as late as 5,600 B.C. in central Alaska, at Stevens Village, on the Yukon River, based upon sedaDNA (sedimentary DNA).  They “developed a statistical model to show that mammoth and horse populations would have dwindled to a few hundred individuals by 8,000 years ago,” i.e., by 6,000 B.C. in that region.  Details in James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full ,
They conclude that “to confidently rule out the possibility that small numbers of mammoths persisted into the Holocene in northwestern North America, macrofossil surveys would need to be intensified significantly,” and that “sedaDNA evidence for mammoth and horse persisting into the Holocene in interior Alaska is incompatible with such rapid extinction and indicates that late-surviving mammoths in the New World were not confined to islands in the Bering Sea.”
Indeed, “the duration of human/megafaunal overlap was probably even greater than suggested by our sedaDNA results, raising questions about the mode and tempo of extinction.”

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm still not sure what you mean by "those you make" but the nature of the KJV is key to my argument. I think, largely in line with Brant Gardner, that Joseph did a loose translation utilizing the KJV errors and all. So that many KJV errors propagated into the Book of Mormon. So I think the KJV brass becomes the BoM brass. Yet the word translated as brass by the KJV is usually translated by other translations as bronze. The point is that we can't necessarily trust the words in Joseph's translation in a straightforward way due to the phraseology dependence on the KJV. Of course it's a bit more complex than that. For names that occur in the KJV it appears the KJV phrases are used whereas for other names typically it uses it's own transliteration scheme.

The KJV and BofM word "brass" is a good example of your confusion.  It is an accurate translation in 1611 and 1830, but not today, because "brass" had a different meaning in those days than it does now.  The Hebrew and Greek haven't changed, but the English language has.  As pointed out by Hugh Nibley in his "Lehi in the Desert," part VIII, Improvement Era, 53/8 (Aug 1950):640, observing that "records which were written on bronze (the Book of Mormon like the Bible always uses brass for what we call bronze) plates," citing (n. 291) the OED on "brass" as any alloy of copper, but "bronze" being used to refer to alloys of copper and tin.

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

........................................................

I think you need to deal with the argument both for and against your position. Far too many articles on the Book of Mormon don't do this and some misrepresent sources. That's true of good science as well as apologetics.

To me apologetics was the primary mission of FARMS back in the day. It's true there always were some problems and some papers/reviews that I think needed at minimum big edits or even not getting into the journals. However by and large the goal was to engage with critic arguments, and explain why it was rational to believe in the Book of Mormon. Some of our arguments were stronger than others. For instance while I think the tapir argument is strong especially if it's a king's spirit-animal I recognize it's harder to make the case for those who are having a faith crisis accentuated by the problem of horses in the Book of Mormon. Good apologetics first off engages fairly and evenly with the evidence both pro and con but makes the case for why one can rationally believe. That of course won't resolve a faith crisis. But hopefully it creates a space where anxiety is held at bay long enough to make it easier for the spirit to convert.

If something isn't apologetics but is merely presenting the history of the Book of Mormon then it's even more not less important to fairly represent the arguments and the relative strengths of the various positions. It should be written in such a way that the reasonably expected audience won't come away with a misunderstanding of the arguments in question. To do otherwise is pure sophistry.

You seem to be preaching to the choir here, Clark, but am not sure what that actually means to you in practice.

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I wouldn't say based only on the last find alone. I'd look a the evidence of bones, the counter-arguments, the number of finds and why most scholars think mammoths went extinct thousands of years ago. I think the arguments there are pretty compelling to. ............................................  

Well, of course they do, but that is not the point:  The non-Mormon scholars date the last mammoth-find at ca. 6,000 BC, but they do not conclude therefore that this represented the very last one.  That would be ridiculous.  That merely means to them that mammoths hung on longer than we have traditionally imagined.  It is a statistical matter.

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We deal with the evidence and draw inferences from the evidence. If you represent my argument as simply "this is the earliest find therefore nothing came after" you're really misreading me.

....................................................

Probably am, although perhaps you meant "nothing came before."  You make the same mistake made by those who believe that the last evidence of a mammoth is actually the last mammoth -- or is an absolute barrier-date from which no extrapolation is possible.  The non-Mormon scholars do not take that position because it is irrational.

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The KJV and BofM word "brass" is a good example of your confusion.  It is an accurate translation in 1611 and 1830, but not today, because "brass" had a different meaning in those days than it does now.  The Hebrew and Greek haven't changed, but the English language has.  As pointed out by Hugh Nibley in his "Lehi in the Desert," part VIII, Improvement Era, 53/8 (Aug 1950):640, observing that "records which were written on bronze (the Book of Mormon like the Bible always uses brass for what we call bronze) plates," citing (n. 291) the OED on "brass" as any alloy of copper, but "bronze" being used to refer to alloys of copper and tin.

I'm not sure how that's disagreeing with me. You're agreeing that you can't take it at face value because of the antiquated meaning of the KJV text and not how people around Joseph would have read the text let alone how it would be read today acontextually. Perhaps similar misunderstandings were going on earlier in our discussion?

Quote

You seem to be preaching to the choir here, Clark, but am not sure what that actually means to you in practice.

I was dealing with your comments disparaging apologetics and critiquing what you described as "hardly a worthy objective." It means something to me because I think we have an ethical duty with regards to apologetics.

Quote

Well, of course they do, but that is not the point:  The non-Mormon scholars date the last mammoth-find at ca. 6,000 BC, but they do not conclude therefore that this represented the very last one.  

But no one, least of all me, was arguing that. I confess I'm not sure what you're objecting to now. You seem to be applying to me positions I've never remotely argued for.

Quote

You make the same mistake made by those who believe that the last evidence of a mammoth is actually the last mammoth -- or is an absolute barrier-date from which no extrapolation is possible.

Again not a position I've argued for relative to mammoths or bows.

Edited June 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure how that's disagreeing with me. You're agreeing that you can't take it at face value because of the antiquated meaning of the KJV text and not how people around Joseph would have read the text let alone how it would be read today acontextually. Perhaps similar misunderstandings were going on earlier in our discussion?

But you revel in by gosh and by golly comparisons and conclusions -- precisely the opposite of the scholarly approach.  Just because something seems to be a reasonable approach doesn't make it so.  One must use rigorous demonstration and incisive analysis.  The many articles by Stanford Carmack have already disabused us of the wrong notion that the 1830 English Book of Mormon was composed in contemporary English -- all of us were surprised by the fact that it is instead in Early Modern English.  Even though we cannot explain why . . .

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I was dealing with your comments disparaging apologetics and critiquing what you described as "hardly a worthy objective." It means something to me because I think we have an ethical duty with regards to apologetics.

Hugh Nibley pointed out a long time ago that only non-Mormon scholarship has respectability.  That is unfair, but a fact nonetheless.  So he recommended citing the non-Mormon scholars in order to provide "gentile respectability."

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But no one, least of all me, was arguing that. I confess I'm not sure what you're objecting to now. You seem to be applying to me positions I've never remotely argued for.

Again not a position I've argued for relative to mammoths or bows.

But that is exactly the position you took on the earliest indications of bow & arrow:  That evidence was for me the terminus ante quem, but for you the absolute terminus post quem.  Same problem with respect to non-Mormon scholarship on mammoths.  Of course, if you reject or belittle the non-Mormon scholarship, then no such data point exists from which to extrapolate in either direction.

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you revel in by gosh and by golly comparisons and conclusions -- precisely the opposite of the scholarly approach.  Just because something seems to be a reasonable approach doesn't make it so.  One must use rigorous demonstration and incisive analysis.  The many articles by Stanford Carmack have already disabused us of the wrong notion that the 1830 English Book of Mormon was composed in contemporary English -- all of us were surprised by the fact that it is instead in Early Modern English.  Even though we cannot explain why . . .

Again I'm really not sure what you're angry about or even what you disagree with me on. I agree that the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 19th century English but explicitly said the opposite from the beginning. I'm flummoxed here since after my making a point you raise exactly the same point and then do so again here. Color me very confused.

Quote

But that is exactly the position you took on the earliest indications of bow & arrow:  That evidence was for me the terminus ante quem, but for you the absolute terminus post quem.  Same problem with respect to non-Mormon scholarship on mammoths.  Of course, if you reject or belittle the non-Mormon scholarship, then no such data point exists from which to extrapolate in either direction.

Again I can only repeat that this isn't the argument I've made. I'm not sure how many times I can say that. I even gave an example of the type of argument I was making by giving an example of induction and finding marbles of different colors in a pouch.  I'm now completely lost as to what exactly you're arguing for or against.

My argument was pretty simple.

1. Most of the referenced articles don't actually suggest preclassical bows and arrows despite being used in a fashion to suggest that.

2. The one article that does suggest preclassical bows does so in an ambiguous fashion that even the author admits.

3. No one I could find in the period after the article (1971) with ambiguous evidence on preclassical bows accepts preclassical bows.

4. There is a strong argument that when bows appear in a region they become swiftly adopted and then diffuse to the surrounding region.

5. If there were preclassical bows in southern Mexico we'd expect them to diffuse to the area around that region but we don't see that.

6. There are no unambiguous artifacts for preclassical bows in the pre-Christian era. But there are unambiguous artifacts for bows in other regions and times. Therefore from sampling we have enough data to say there most likely weren't bows in this time and region.

7. Therefore it seems safe to say that bows only entered the southern Mexico region sometime in the post-Christian era although the exact date seems unclear (roughly between 100 AD - 800 AD with most favoring the later date)

8. Atlatls can account for the referent of bow in the Book of Mormon due to functional equivalence.

9. Early writers used terms like bow or crossbow to describe the atlatl spear thrower

10. Therefore given that there are strong, if not conclusive, reasons to think there were no bows during the area and time of the Book of Mormon, and because bow as a description fits the weapon we do know was in that time and region, we should assume when the Book of Mormon talks about bows in the post-Jacob era (~400 BC) they are actually talking about atlatls.

That's the whole argument. I confess I'd be completely unable to outline what arguments you are making. Occasionally you've gestured towards sources but then I look up the sources that are available and they don't appear to say what you were taking them to say. Not sure what's left to say. I've put forth a good faith effort of looking up sources and trying to give clear arguments. I'll just bow out unless you offer some data.

Edited June 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I'm really not sure what you're angry about or even what you disagree with me on. I agree that the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 19th century English but explicitly said the opposite from the beginning. I'm flummoxed here since after my making a point you raise exactly the same point and then do so again here. Color me very confused.

You say the words, but you don't show any evidence that you actually accept them in your linguistic drift examples, nearly all of which were wrong or irrelevant.

Quote

Again I can only repeat that this isn't the argument I've made. I'm not sure how many times I can say that. I even gave an example of the type of argument I was making by giving an example of induction and finding marbles of different colors in a pouch.  I'm now completely lost as to what exactly you're arguing for or against.

Nice, but in practice you reject the way in which non-Mormon Mesoamerican archeologists in fact extrapolate from the evidence they find.  Marbles in a pouch is not an example that speaks to the issue. Nor do abstract distinctions between induction or deduction.  Practical application of extrapolation from real evidence might help clarify.  For example, in defense of your own approach, you are better off quoting Steven LeBlanc.

See also CNRS,  “First non-utilitarian weapons found in the Arabian Peninsula,” ScienceDaily, March 10, 2016, online at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080816.htm . 

Quote

Summary:  An exceptional collection of bronze weapons dating from the Iron Age II (900-600 BC) has been uncovered near Adam, in the Sultanate of Oman. The remains were discovered scattered on the ground in a building belonging to what is thought to be a religious complex, during excavations carried out by the French archaeological mission in central Oman. In particular, they include two complete quivers and weapons made of metal, including two bows, objects that are for the most part non-functional and hitherto unknown in the Arabian Peninsula.

photo:  Bows, arrows, daggers and axes scattered on the ground at Mudhmar Est.

What do the non-Mormon scholars conclude from such an unprecedented find?

Edited June 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

Again I can only say that I'm trying my darnedest to figure out what you're arguing for but I seem unable. You're saying vague things like "you say the words but don't show any evidence you actually accept them" and I have absolutely no idea what you're even objecting to let alone what you're arguing for. You say the problem isn't induction or sample and then quote a discovery in Oman with no indication of how on earth that relates to the current discussion nor how it relates to sampling.

My best guess of what I think you might be getting at in an extremely circumstance manner is just that new evidence can overthrow old theories. Which of course I don't deny in the least. Which, if that is indeed what you're arguing, seems even more perplexing. Of course we might find evidence of bows in preclassical southern Mexico. But since we haven't found such evidence how on earth does that tell us anything? Assuming this is in fact what you're arguing which I confess I just can't tell.

I'll just bow out I think.

Edited June 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll just bow out...

Pun intended?

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are going to fault non-Mormon scholars for concluding from those latest dated bones with erroneously concluding (on the basis of statistical likelihood) that the last mammoth in the Western hemisphere died later that 6000 BC?

I am unfamiliar with distribution of mammoth bones. Are there any cases of mammoth bones being found in Mesoamerican climates? From what little I've read on the topic, mostly from sources critical of the Book of Mormon, the flora of Mesoamerica could not easily support grazing megafauna such as mammoths and horses. 

There won't be anything written about this I'm certain, but would it have been possible to tame or domesticate mammoths? I've read somewhat on taming of elephants and it is not an easy thing. Even the relatively tame Asian elephants are extremely dangerous if not cared for properly. There are countless cases of both wild and tame elephants rampaging through villages and crushing people, and even flipping cars. If a Jaredite who arrived in the New World around 2500 BC did at some point take a mammoth calf into his care, he would have to ween it and carefully raise it for several years feeding it massive amounts of food (something that would have been difficult during the famine) while avoiding being trampled to death by a beast that could crush a human with one misstep.

We know Asians were taming elephants in the correct time period, but would such a feat be possible within such a short timeframe for a Mesopotamian culture entirely unfamiliar with Mesoamerican mammoths?

[strappinglad]

Hay, if people can tame a dinosaur, they can certainly tame a mammoth ( see Ica Stones ) Actually RM , the mammoth business was just an example used to illustrate a point , not a reference to Jaredite or any other culture.

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Actually RM , the mammoth business was just an example used to illustrate a point , not a reference to Jaredite or any other culture.

The references to what appear to be tame or domesticated elephants (mammoths?) in Ether 9 have baffled me for some time. But its a conversation that probably belongs in a separate thread. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I am unfamiliar with distribution of mammoth bones. Are there any cases of mammoth bones being found in Mesoamerican climates? From what little I've read on the topic, mostly from sources critical of the Book of Mormon, the flora of Mesoamerica could not easily support grazing megafauna such as mammoths and horses. 

There won't be anything written about this I'm certain, but would it have been possible to tame or domesticate mammoths? I've read somewhat on taming of elephants and it is not an easy thing. Even the relatively tame Asian elephants are extremely dangerous if not cared for properly. There are countless cases of both wild and tame elephants rampaging through villages and crushing people, and even flipping cars. If a Jaredite who arrived in the New World around 2500 BC did at some point take a mammoth calf into his care, he would have to ween it and carefully raise it for several years feeding it massive amounts of food (something that would have been difficult during the famine) while avoiding being trampled to death by a beast that could crush a human with one misstep.

We know Asians were taming elephants in the correct time period, but would such a feat be possible within such a short timeframe for a Mesopotamian culture entirely unfamiliar with Mesoamerican mammoths?

I don't know, but we do have early mammoth bones in the lowest layers of Loltun Cave in the Yucatan (Robert T. Hatt, "Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves," Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33, 1953; Peter J. Schmidt, "La entrada del hombre a la peninsula de Yucatan," in Origines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (Mexico: Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1988), 250.  We also have examples of numerous mammoth remains, some butchered by humans, in Mexico about 14000 years ago (12,000 BC), https://phys.org/news/2016-06-mammoth-uncovered-mexico.html .  Other examples have been found as far afield as Oklahoma (https://phys.org/news/2016-03-partial-skull-columbian-mammoth-oklahoma.html ), and Carlsbad, California (https://phys.org/news/2015-09-ice-age-fossils-carlsbad-homes.html#nRlv ).  Mammoths clearly subsisted on the Great Plains, in Alta California, as well as in semi-tropical regions, where there was plenty of forage.  This would have been true also for the horse, which could have done well in the high altiplano of Mexico and Guatemala where there was plenty of grass.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I can only say that I'm trying my darnedest to figure out what you're arguing for but I seem unable. You're saying vague things like "you say the words but don't show any evidence you actually accept them" and I have absolutely no idea what you're even objecting to let alone what you're arguing for. You say the problem isn't induction or sample and

 

Quote

Quote

See also CNRS,  “First non-utilitarian weapons found in the Arabian Peninsula,” ScienceDaily, March 10, 2016, online at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080816.htm . 

  Quote

Summary:  An exceptional collection of bronze weapons dating from the Iron Age II (900-600 BC) has been uncovered near Adam, in the Sultanate of Oman. The remains were discovered scattered on the ground in a building belonging to what is thought to be a religious complex, during excavations carried out by the French archaeological mission in central Oman. In particular, they include two complete quivers and weapons made of metal, including two bows, objects that are for the most part non-functional and hitherto unknown in the Arabian Peninsula.

photo:  Bows, arrows, daggers and axes scattered on the ground at Mudhmar Est.

What do the non-Mormon scholars conclude from such an unprecedented find?

. . . then quote a discovery in Oman with no indication of how on earth that relates to the current discussion nor how it relates to sampling.

My best guess of what I think you might be getting at in an extremely circumstance manner is just that new evidence can overthrow old theories. Which of course I don't deny in the least. Which, if that is indeed what you're arguing, seems even more perplexing. Of course we might find evidence of bows in preclassical southern Mexico. But since we haven't found such evidence how on earth does that tell us anything? Assuming this is in fact what you're arguing which I confess I just can't tell........................................

I cited a source and asked you a question.  You did not even attempt to answer the question, apparently believing that it is not worth bothering with.  Once again your apriori notions reign supreme, and whatever I suggest need not be given the slightest concern.  How non-Mormon scholars might deal with a discovery is of no importance, even though it deals directly with a theretofore unknown artifact in that region.  Is the scientific method of so little importance to you?  Leaving aside apologetics, please.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[hagoth7]

On 6/19/2017 at 2:37 PM, clarkgoble said:

Let me say up front I'm a big believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon..... 

Ditto.

On 6/19/2017 at 2:37 PM, clarkgoble said:

..... think an important part of apologetics is...pointing out places where we presume something existed but have no evidence. (Hannibal's elephants being the more popular way of explaining how evidence can disappear)

Don't leave it a wee bit of topspin in such a reply.

Hannibal's troops had curleom and cummon spice to make their elephant steaks tastier.

Carthaginians did, after all, control the transatlantic spice trade. :0) 

(Just expanding the steaks of Zion.)

On 6/19/2017 at 2:37 PM, clarkgoble said:

...in today's Book of Mormon central there's a discussion of arrows and other weapons mentioned by Jarom. The problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period. That is I think they misrepresent the time frame of bows....You can trace the movement of the bow reasonably well in archaeology as it moves from the north southward.

Since there supposedly is no revealed geography, why insist on a region for which there is yet no such fit (for bows)? 

In other words why not allow people to draw their own conclusions as to where Zarahemla/Bountiful were, rather than make that decision for them? American LGT doesn't seem to be a hill worth dying on, but hey what do I know? I'd suggest instead presenting the evidence, and options, and empowering them to draw *their own* conclusion. Teach them true principles, and let them govern themselves. That way, they own their own decision.

I just left the Museum of Natural History in SLC. Plenty of North American bow/arrow/arrowhead samples on display there from the ancient era, from ancient Utah alone. Give people choices/agency.

Thoughts?

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

On 6/23/2017 at 8:09 PM, strappinglad said:

Hay, if people can tame a dinosaur, they can certainly tame a mammoth ( see Ica Stones ) ...

Everrybody thinks cave condos were only occuppied by the violent.

Some of the cave drawings were depictions of the community gathering to car wash their domesticated mammoths.

[hagoth7]

On 6/23/2017 at 8:09 PM, strappinglad said:

Hay, if people can tame a dinosaur...( see Ica Stones ) 

1. I believe Lehites landed in that region. 

2. And that the return attempts of Zeniff types brought Nephites back to the region.

3. What led them in their journeys? What kind of people, and what *kind* of light did Jared's brother's stones privide?

4. If there were seers/seeresses among them, vivid glimpses back in time and forward in time, why is a depiction of the distant past (as modern dinosaur illustrators provide in museums and books today), or of devices/inventions off in their future (which some believe Ezekiel and Revelation provided) be beyond question?

Edited July 13, 2017 by hagoth7

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I just left the Museum of Natural History in SLC. Plenty of North American bow/arrow/arrowhead samples on display there from the ancient era, from ancient Utah alone. Give people choices/agency.

Relevant era isn't just ancient but relevant time period of 400 BC - 0 AD. They don't appear in the Great Basin and intermountain west until around 200 AD. I certainly want people to be free to pick their own location, they have to explain the relevant parts of scripture. I don't think the Great Lakes model can do that. The relevant time period there for bows is 600 AD although they don't become common until 900-1300 AD.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Relevant era isn't just ancient but relevant time period of 400 BC - 0 AD. They don't appear in the Great Basin and intermountain west until around 200 AD. I certainly want people to be free to pick their own location, they have to explain the relevant parts of scripture. I don't think the Great Lakes model can do that. The relevant time period there for bows is 600 AD although they don't become common until 900-1300 AD.

We don't know where the Book of Mormon took place. If bows and arrows (and elephants, horses, silk, chariots, iron, swords, wheat, barley, sheep, goats, cows etc.) aren't found in the Americas in the right time period then wouldn't the most logical next step be to identify a place where those things are found in the right time period?

Maybe "America" and "New World" are the terms that are fluid. For example, Christopher Columbus, Amerigo Vesupcci and mapmakers of the early 16th century identified the "New World" as an extension of Asia. The first globe featuring the term "America" places it between Madagascar and the Malay Peninsula:



Why bother reinterpreting words such as horse/tapir, elephant/mammoth, bow/atlatl, iron/meteorites, silk/pineapple fiber, when all we have to do is expand the range of the New World to include regions where elephants, bows, horses, iron and silk were actually found?

Edited July 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Relevant era isn't just ancient but relevant time period of 400 BC - 0 AD. They don't appear in the Great Basin and intermountain west until around 200 AD. 

There are samples dating before 200 AD on display. (And what's on display is obviously just a subset of what's in storage, and obviously a smaller subset of what's still under the earth.)

I certainly want people to be free to pick their own location...

Then we agree on that facet. :0)

...they have to explain the relevant parts of scripture...

Have to? Don't we need to grant others the freedom to determine which parts *they* happen to deem relevant?

I'd venture, for example, that there are passages I deem quite relevant that you haven't yet considered/factored. And very likely visa versa.

...I don't think the Great Lakes model can do that...

I respectfully disagree.

And I think the assertion that no rational person would disagree with my or your dazzling brilliance does a disservice to honest, intelligent people who *will* interpret data differently.

Even Joseph said that he didn't blame others for not believing him. I think there's an important/awesome/empowering/liberating lesson there.

Thoughts?

...The relevant time period there for bows is 600 AD although they don't become common until 900-1300 AD.

Common?

Dunno why in linguistics and archaology and textual studies we need to argue that something has to be common for it to simply be true on a more modest scale.