Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oklds

The "Heartland Theory" (?)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Tajara said:

I agree that the Heartland model is not particularly troublesome.  If you dig deep enough (no pun intended) the evidence of war, weapons and armor are all present--except maybe the bow.  The numbers do seem to be down until you consider items such as the great Hopewell road -- completely unnecessary for a few hunter-gatherers. 

There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates.  

Evidence for such writing on lead, silver, copper and gold that is accepted academically? Evidence for swords? Evidence for armor? Bows are actually the least problematic since while they aren't in the acceptable finds for the period in question, they can be explained as a semantic shift with atlatls (as with mesoamerica). Further if you go back to pre-Woodland eras there are bows. But the above showcases the problem.

In saying that I'll fully admit that a frustrating things mesoamerican proponents do is find interesting things that might remotely turn out to be evidence and then treat it as if it were evidence. You see that with say how some have promoted horse bones in pre-columbian strata as evidence without putting forth the work to bother dating them. You find similar problems with bows and other such things. However such "suggestive" things just aren't evidence until the details are worked out. Most of the "suggestive" finds for the heartland model I've found end up being extremely dubious.

As I said, there are reasons to be a bit skeptical of the mesoamerican model. However in terms of actual evidence there's a lot there. Just not enough to really be conclusive. But when comparing to the Heartland model there's just a ton more.

If there were evidence I'd be all over it as the date of the decline of the Hopewell does correspond loosely to the dates in the Book of Mormon. But the rest just isn't there. Particularly the lack of cities and the numbers of peoples.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tajara said:

There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing...  Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates.  

Would you please elucidate? I know there is evidence that they had a form of writing, and collected metals such as iron, copper and gold, but for instance, I know nothing of gold plates. The only gold plates I know about sit in the Peabody Museum of Harvard, and come from MesoAmerica. If you have some other good evidence, I am fully interested.

Share this post


Link to post

I sure will.  :)  From the research of Utahna Jessop: 

The Taliwa, a tribe descended from the Mound Builders, lived in the Plateau region of the Southwestern plains.  Sometime before 1483, they were reduced through dire circumstances to a small remnant.  Suffering much hardship, 25 emaciated survivors traveled east on foot for more than a year to live with their Cherokee relatives, bringing with them, "thin gold plates of their written language."  The famous Cherokee, Sequoya, was a descendant of the Taliwa people and the last scribe of their Seven Clans Society.  The original Cherokee syllabary came from the writing on the Taliwa gold plates and was in use by the Cherokee since 1483 (pre-Columbian).  According to Traveler Bird, Tell Them They Lie,  "The original symbols were identical or similar to letters in alphabets used by Christians and Jews in the Middle East...also found in the Jewish Kabala manuscripts."  The current Cherokee Syllabary was not created until 1827 by Elias Boudinot, not Sequoyah.  Cherokee tradition holds that they obtained the Taliwa writing system along the Etowa River in Georgia, but it was also known by the Tuskegee Creeks (known for their intelligence and powerful memories) in the Smoky Mountain region.  The Creeks also have a syllabary supposedly descended from the Taliwa writing.

Dr. Paul Cheesman mentioned that the Tuckabatchees (Muskogee) had plates of brass with writing on them.  Further research  from the History of Alabama reveals that the Muskogee -- particularly the Creek and Shawnee -- had two brazen tablets and five of copper which were given to them by the Great Spirit, handed down from time immemorial.  The crudely cut tablets were circular, oval, square, and spatula shaped.  Some resembled breastplates or shields of ancient soldiers with writing on them which appeared to be Hebrew.  These sacred inscribed tablets were brought out only once a year for the Green Corn Ceremony (which, by the way, is similar to the Offering of the First Fruits in the Bible). 

Incidentally, brass breastplates/shields have occasionally turned up in Hopewell Mounds in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Ohio and Kentucky and two brass  bracelets were among the artifacts discovered with the Bat Creek Stone.  Geologist Scott Wolter stated that "the metallurgical properties of the bracelets are nearly identical to those of ancient Israelite artifacts."  One scholar contends that "A conscious effort was made by the Smithsonian Institution to obscure the results of the tests" nevertheless, a date of A.D. 32 was obained from wood fragments found with the Bat Creek stone, the bracelets, and the other items. 

The Kinderhook Plates were (I believe, erroneously) dismissed as forgeries, partly due to the fact that the one remaining plate (presumed to be an original) was made of brass.

Chief Copway wrote that most Indian nations of the west have places in which they deposit their records. Ojibways have 3 depositories near Lake Superior.  These records are written on slate-rock, copper, lead, and birch bark and wrapped in swan or geese down before being placed in a hollow cedar log smeared with gum.  They are apparently a transcript of what the Great Spirit gave them after the flood.  It was customary to check on the records from time to time and trade out the old obscured records with exact copies.  A practice which makes accurate dating of the recorded history extremely difficult, if not impossible.       ~ Tajara 

 

        

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tajara said:

 

 

I sure will.  :)  From the research of Utahna Jessop: 

The Taliwa, a tribe descended from the Mound Builders, lived in the Plateau region of the Southwestern plains.  Sometime before 1483, they were reduced through dire circumstances to a small remnant.  Suffering much hardship, 25 emaciated survivors traveled east on foot for more than a year to live with their Cherokee relatives, bringing with them, "thin gold plates of their written language."  The famous Cherokee, Sequoya, was a descendant of the Taliwa people and the last scribe of their Seven Clans Society.  The original Cherokee syllabary came from the writing on the Taliwa gold plates and was in use by the Cherokee since 1483 (pre-Columbian).  According to Traveler Bird, Tell Them They Lie,  "The original symbols were identical or similar to letters in alphabets used by Christians and Jews in the Middle East...also found in the Jewish Kabala manuscripts."  The current Cherokee Syllabary was not created until 1827 by Elias Boudinot, not Sequoyah.  Cherokee tradition holds that they obtained the Taliwa writing system along the Etowa River in Georgia, but it was also known by the Tuskegee Creeks (known for their intelligence and powerful memories) in the Smoky Mountain region.  The Creeks also have a syllabary supposedly descended from the Taliwa writing.

Dr. Paul Cheesman mentioned that the Tuckabatchees (Muskogee) had plates of brass with writing on them.  Further research  from the History of Alabama reveals that the Muskogee -- particularly the Creek and Shawnee -- had two brazen tablets and five of copper which were given to them by the Great Spirit, handed down from time immemorial.  The crudely cut tablets were circular, oval, square, and spatula shaped.  Some resembled breastplates or shields of ancient soldiers with writing on them which appeared to be Hebrew.  These sacred inscribed tablets were brought out only once a year for the Green Corn Ceremony (which, by the way, is similar to the Offering of the First Fruits in the Bible). 

Incidentally, brass breastplates/shields have occasionally turned up in Hopewell Mounds in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Ohio and Kentucky and two brass  bracelets were among the artifacts discovered with the Bat Creek Stone.  Geologist Scott Wolter stated that "the metallurgical properties of the bracelets are nearly identical to those of ancient Israelite artifacts."  One scholar contends that "A conscious effort was made by the Smithsonian Institution to obscure the results of the tests" nevertheless, a date of A.D. 32 was obained from wood fragments found with the Bat Creek stone, the bracelets, and the other items. 

 

 

The Kinderhook Plates were (I believe, erroneously) dismissed as forgeries, partly due to the fact that the one remaining plate (presumed to be an original) was made of brass.

Chief Copway wrote that most Indian nations of the west have places in which they deposit their records. Ojibways have 3 depositories near Lake Superior.  These records are written on slate-rock, copper, lead, and birch bark and wrapped in swan or geese down before being placed in a hollow cedar log smeared with gum.  They are apparently a transcript of what the Great Spirit gave them after the flood.  It was customary to check on the records from time to time and trade out the old obscured records with exact copies.  A practice which makes accurate dating of the recorded history extremely difficult, if not impossible.       ~ Tajara 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

So...do you believe the kinderhook plates were real..with exception of one brass plate??  Forgive me if I have misunderstood.  Thank you for all the info.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I am sorry I did not make that clear.  There is only one remaining plate and it is brass.  I do not believe that the Kinderhook Plates have been proven to be a hoax (manufactured in 1843).  The strikes against them, in my opinion are clearly based on conjecture and are very inconclusive. 

Here is an article on the subject:  http://www.ancienthistoricalresearchfoundation.com/index.php/item/511-reclaim-kinderhook-plates

Share this post


Link to post

Tajara, again do you have items with their contents agreed upon by scholars - not legends? What you are giving is exactly what I criticize mesoamerican proponents for sometimes doing - treating an indication for evidence. The claim in the period when there was writing that there was writing earlier isn't really evidence. Orally reported myths and legends aren't the same as empirical evidence. It just isn't. By the same token early Catholic accounts of what mayans believed should be treated as highly suspicious due to the same phenomena of taking Spanish culture and recasting earlier stories in terms of structures of Spanish understanding. This tends to "Christianize" stories that originally weren't really like Christianity but also inject technology and culture from the later periods into the earlier stories. Likewise sacred drawings aren't the same as sacred writings in a written language.

So again, do you have reference to a peer reviewed article accepting these legends as historic fact? Chessman, who has his own problems with claims, mentioning something in passing isn't the same as it being true when examined closely.  I tried to find what you attribute to Chessman checking JSTOR and other such databases but can't find anything. The Micmac had a hieroglyphic writing system - but since they're in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick region it's too far to the northeast to be relevant for the Heartland model. Although it's still debated whether it's actually a language or a mnemonic device that was transformed in the 17th century by French missionaries. Most other native writing systems such as Cree syllabics were actually developed by Christian missionaries in the 17th through 19th centuries. The Ojibwe also have a system of glyphs similar to the Micmac but again are petroglyphs like rather than linguistic in nature. To be clear the issue isn't whether native Americans had such glyphs but whether they had written language. It's unambiguous that this was the case in Mexico and further south. So far as I can tell no scholars really accept such in the north.

The purported brass armor is taken by most scholars to be ceremonial dress and thus not armor at all. The problem with using it as armor is the softness of the copper used. They didn't have the technology in the relevant time period of heating the metal to anneal it and make it harder. It wouldn't stop an arrowhead or ax for instance. (There's some evidence for later casting and annealing that's still in pre-Columbian times - see "Did Midwest Precolumbian Indians Cast Metal?" But this is too late for most of the Book of Mormon narrative) Also there's just no evidence of large war parties just small communities doing small scale raiding.

Again, to be clear, mesoamerica has its own problems particularly with metallurgy and available metals. However those are far worse in the north (IMO).

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tajara said:

Oh, I am sorry I did not make that clear.  There is only one remaining plate and it is brass.  I do not believe that the Kinderhook Plates have been proven to be a hoax (manufactured in 1843).  The strikes against them, in my opinion are clearly based on conjecture and are very inconclusive. 

Here is an article on the subject:  http://www.ancienthistoricalresearchfoundation.com/index.php/item/511-reclaim-kinderhook-plates

Thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 What you are giving is exactly what I criticize mesoamerican proponents for sometimes doing - treating an indication for evidence. The claim in the period when there was writing that there was writing earlier isn't really evidence. Orally reported myths and legends aren't the same as empirical evidence. It just isn't.

Likewise sacred drawings aren't the same as sacred writings in a written language.

So again, do you have reference to a peer reviewed article accepting these legends as historic fact? Chessman, who has his own problems with claims, mentioning something in passing isn't the same as it being true when examined closely.  I tried to find what you attribute to Chessman checking JSTOR and other such databases but can't find anything.

To be clear the issue isn't whether native Americans had such glyphs but whether they had written language. It's unambiguous that this was the case in Mexico and further south. So far as I can tell no scholars really accept such in the north.

The purported brass armor is taken by most scholars to be ceremonial dress and thus not armor at all. The problem with using it as armor is the softness of the copper used. They didn't have the technology in the relevant time period of heating the metal to anneal it and make it harder. It wouldn't stop an arrowhead or ax for instance. (There's some evidence for later casting and annealing that's still in pre-Columbian times - see "Did Midwest Precolumbian Indians Cast Metal?" But this is too late for most of the Book of Mormon narrative) 

 

 

Clark, 

   I was not implying that the Heartland model (or any other geography model) was fact.   My intent was to present evidence for plausibility.   :)

EV'IDENCE, n. [L. evidentia, from video, to see.] [.] 1. That which elucidates and enables the mind to see truth; proof arising from our own perceptions by the senses, or from the testimony of others, or from inductions of reason.

Forgive me, but you seem to belabor the point.  You say "The claim in the period when there was writing that there was writing earlier isn't really evidence." By your definition of evidence, nothing written in a history book qualifies.  😕  

I am aware that oral histories are subject to inaccuracies, but they do have value.  Still, I was not quoting oral myths and legends.  I took notes from a paper by Dr. Paul Cheesman on an analysis of the Kinderhook Plates wherein I noted the brass plates of the "Tuckabatchee."  I do not think the paper is available,  but it led me to John Reed Swanton's Creek Religion and Medicine, Volume 42, Part 4  pp 505-508 Copyright 2000, University of Nebraska Press Lincoln and London.  The history of Alabama was a better source, but I am not sure where I put the reference...

You say that "sacred drawings are not the same as sacred writings in a written language", yet "Pictography is a form of writing which uses representational, pictorial drawings, similarly to cuneiform and, to some extent, hieroglyphic writing, which also uses drawings as phonetic letters or determinative rhymes."  I don't see what difference it makes.  (?)  Many native tribes do claim to have records written on metal plates--see The Ojibway Nation by George Copway, pp 123-139 (Chapter X Their Language and Writings). 

Besides, what about the Bat Creek stone -- A.D. 32? 

 'ARMOR, n. [from arm.] [.] 1. Defensive arms; any habit worn to protect the body in battle; formerly called harness.  

"In the year 1833, or thereabout, some laborers engaged in removing a mound at Fall River, Mass., unearthed a skeleton clad in armor....On the breast was a plate of brass... This plate appears to have been cast...encircling the body was a belt composed of brass tubes..."  See Millennial Star Monday, November 25, 1878.  The age of the skeleton was not determined.  Phoenician and Norse were both mentioned as possibilities.

Nevertheless, Iron/steel weapons were made at least as early as 1300 B.C. in present -day Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and Jordan - the very areas our Book of Mormon people came from.  While critics state that "No one has found evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric North America", the truth is, smelter remains and iron slag along with an iron axe head still in the mold were found at an Adena site in Ohio, a cast iron bar was found at a recently discovered smelting site in West Virginia where iron was being smelted as early as 150 A.D., and in the Payson, Utah mound site, there was indication of an iron sword at the side of a large skeleton and clay molds for casting iron implements.  My point being, the extent of metallurgical technology known among the Mound Builders is still being discovered.   ;)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/30/2018 at 3:52 PM, Calm said:

He [Rod Meldrum] overdid 'this work has been revealed to me' bit making geographical belief a matter of faithfulness when the Church has officially come our and said it endorses no theory.  Scholars are in apostasy, etc, in many heartlanders' views and are regularly attacked.

This reminds me of the story Hugh Nibley told of the man who brought to him some production (an epic poem or something like that) and asked him to read it.

"But," he said, "you cannot criticize it."

"Why?" Nibley asked.

"Because it was given to me by revelation," the man replied.

Bro. Meldrum's "Heartland Theory" may have been revealed to him, or so he may think, but it still has to withstand scrutiny and evaluation———and it just doesn't.

Edited by bdouglas
Expand

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

Bro. Meldrum's "Heartland Theory" may have been revealed to him, or so he may think, but it still has to withstand scrutiny and evaluation———and it just doesn't.

I don't remember if Meldrum claims the theory is a revelation, but he did claim revelations in forming his Foundation that promotes it in emails he sent out to apparently anyone he thought might be interested in supporting/donating to it.

Either way, your point still stands.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

I don't remember if Meldrum claims the theory is a revelation, but he did claim revelations in forming his Foundation that promotes it in emails he sent out to apparently anyone he thought might be interested in supporting/donating to it.

Either way, your point still stands.

I am a big fan of Hugh Nibley. When I was in 25-ish, I read "Zeal Without Knowledge" and never forgot it. It is a problem in our culture, zeal without knowledge——in fact I think it is a problem in any deeply religious culture.

And it used to be a problem with me. When I came off my mission, I had a ton of zeal——but not much knowledge, knowledge that was necessary to balance my zeal. I've been playing catch up ever since.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Tajara said:

I was not implying that the Heartland model (or any other geography model) was fact.   My intent was to present evidence for plausibility.   :)

I understand, and realize I make the same sorts of criticisms of certain claims about mesoamerica that I think are either very weak logically or problematic. That is a constant problem is that someone mentions (often in passing) that something might have a certain characteristic. Apologists latch onto this, never taking the next obvious step of checking to see if it's actually the case. Those are extremely weak and I don't think really help plausibility arguments. By evidence I'm talking of items with specifically known properties, not unexamined objects someone speculates about. I just don't consider the latter evidence for a thesis. At best it's a reason to construct a hypothesis and test it.

14 hours ago, Tajara said:

Besides, what about the Bat Creek stone -- A.D. 32?

I think the Bat Creek stone, like the Kinderhook plates, a forgery. In any case a contested item most  consider a forgery isn't good evidence for a position even if you disagree with the consensus. If Bat Creek was real, why haven't more documents of that sort been found? Even in mesoamerica where there was systemic destruction on writings there's still a lot of writing that we can find. So it's rather suspicious to say the least. But when the only evidence for writing is considered a forgery from a masonic illustration, then at minimum we have to say the evidence for mesoamerica is much stronger.

15 hours ago, Tajara said:

You say that "sacred drawings are not the same as sacred writings in a written language", yet "Pictography is a form of writing which uses representational, pictorial drawings, similarly to cuneiform and, to some extent, hieroglyphic writing, which also uses drawings as phonetic letters or determinative rhymes."  I don't see what difference it makes.  (?)  Many native tribes do claim to have records written on metal plates--see The Ojibway Nation by George Copway, pp 123-139 (Chapter X Their Language and Writings). 

It's actually a rather big difference - it's like saying that a painting is a language. Language is able to convey specific propositions by someone familiar just with a small set of glyphs. Pictures typically aren't as normed and require much more localized knowledge. The problem is that the Book of Mormon simply talks about speeches conveyed by writing, writing of scripture etc. i.e. normal language in glyphs, not a few images used as a memory device.

No one believes that there was writing in the area north of Mexico in the relevant time frame. As I said the system that comes closest is the MicMac of Nova Scotia (where I'm from) and in general that isn't seen as a language in the pre-columbian time frame.

15 hours ago, Tajara said:

"In the year 1833, or thereabout, some laborers engaged in removing a mound at Fall River, Mass., unearthed a skeleton clad in armor....On the breast was a plate of brass... This plate appears to have been cast...encircling the body was a belt composed of brass tubes..."  See Millennial Star Monday, November 25, 1878.  The age of the skeleton was not determined.  Phoenician and Norse were both mentioned as possibilities.

Again how people at the time (especially amateurs) interpreted it is irrelevant. The consensus among archaeologists is that it's not armor but ceremonial dress.

15 hours ago, Tajara said:

Nevertheless, Iron/steel weapons were made at least as early as 1300 B.C. in present -day Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and Jordan - the very areas our Book of Mormon people came from

That first off isn't really relevant but second off doesn't support the Heartland model more than the mesoamerican model.

15 hours ago, Tajara said:

While critics state that "No one has found evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric North America", the truth is, smelter remains and iron slag along with an iron axe head still in the mold were found at an Adena site in Ohio, a cast iron bar was found at a recently discovered smelting site in West Virginia where iron was being smelted as early as 150 A.D., and in the Payson, Utah mound site, there was indication of an iron sword at the side of a large skeleton and clay molds for casting iron implements.  My point being, the extent of metallurgical technology known among the Mound Builders is still being discovered.     

Faith that it'll be found is fine. I think the similar problem in mesoamerica will also eventually be reconciled. However the examples you give are contested to say the least.

I'd never heard of the claim from Payson. For it to be relevant it'd have to have been scientifically investigated otherwise it might be a conquistador for all we know. (I'm sure you've heard the legends of their buried treasure in the Uintas) The fact horses were found at the site along with a tombstone suggests it was Spanish. It's too bad none of the items were available to be tested beyond the wheat, which grew, strongly suggesting recent remains.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the West Virginia site. I found some hobbyist writings about the Arkfeld site but nothing from legitimate archaeologists and nothing submitted to peer review and criticism.

For the iron axe claim I couldn't find anything. Do you have a link to a scientifically investigated site? (i.e. not some judgement from untrained people in the 19th century) I found evidence of meteoric iron used as decoration on pottery but nothing smelted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Bat Creek stone definitely a forgery.

The guy who allegedly found it had a record for forgery prior to him finding it, not to mention everything else wrong with it

 

Edited by Anijen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Meldrum and Wayne May played in a sand-box when they were children, thus, they are experts in archaeology.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you Clark for your patience and insight.  I have learned a lot from you.

To clarify, I am not a proponent of the Hopewell interaction sphere as all inclusive, as is often implied by the Heartland theory.  However, I do believe the prophet Joseph Smith knew full well where the Book of Mormon took place and made irrefutable statements involving the Hopewell lands that definitively include them.

On 8/1/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

I think the Bat Creek stone, like the Kinderhook plates, a forgery. In any case a contested item most  consider a forgery isn't good evidence for a position even if you disagree with the consensus.

I have to disagree.  My goal is to discover truth, not prove it to the world.  Evidence is evidence, truth is truth, regardless of what others choose to accept.  I do understand what you are saying, though.  When it comes to teaching others, or expressing knowledge, personal opinions and beliefs, no matter how truthful the evidence, if it is tainted with doubt is not likely to be accepted. 

Therein is a problem.

  All too often, authenticity of an item is called into question, the seeds of doubt are sown, and we are pressed to choose sides when the argument has not been proven either way.  In fact, the arguments against authenticity are often pitifully weak, fraught with conjecture, and backed by ulterior motives. Yet, once the die is cast, one cannot even examine the evidence without losing all semblance of credibility in the minds of others.  The quest for truth becomes constrained by circumstantial checkmate, if you will.

On 8/1/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

 If Bat Creek was real, why haven't more documents of that sort been found? Even in mesoamerica where there was systemic destruction on writings there's still a lot of writing that we can find. So it's rather suspicious to say the least. But when the only evidence for writing is considered a forgery from a masonic illustration...

J. Huston McCulloch Feb. 23, 2005, “The remarkable similarity between the Smithsonian’s Bat Creek inscription and a Paleo-Hebrew phrase published in an 1870 Masonic reference work…demonstrates that its Hebrew affinity should have been apparent even in 1889. However, the two texts are different, even to the number of letters in the two words, and Bat Creek correctly uses the mandatory word divider absent in the Masonic text. The former therefore could not have been copied from the latter, and is not necessarily a fraud as asserted…”  See the second section of www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html

The Bat Creek stone is not a proven forgery any more than the Book of Mormon, the Kinderhook Plates, the Newark Holy Stones, the Walam Olum, the Michigan Tablets, and so many others that have been branded as ‘hoax” without a complete and thorough study.

On 8/1/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

No one believes that there was writing in the area north of Mexico in the relevant time frame.

You are wrong, my friend.  I do.  Unquestionably. 

In reference to the mound containing a skeleton in armor, you said:

On 8/1/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

The consensus among archaeologists is that it's not armor but ceremonial dress.

That does not surprise me, but the Book of Mormon was translated in the 1800’s using the word armor defined as 1. Defensive arms; any habit worn to protect the body in battle….  A skeleton was discovered (also in the 1800’s) wearing armor.  Whether or not it would stop an arrow, an axe, a bullet, or a missile is irrelevant; it was armor.  ;)

On 8/1/2018 at 12:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

I'd never heard of the claim from Payson. For it to be relevant it'd have to have been scientifically investigated otherwise it might be a conquistador for all we know. (I'm sure you've heard the legends of their buried treasure in the Uintas) The fact horses were found at the site along with a tombstone suggests it was Spanish. It's too bad none of the items were available to be tested beyond the wheat, which grew, strongly suggesting recent remains.

Edward Palmer, Field Assistant of the Smithsonian visited the Payson Mound site in 1877.   “The skeletons were judged to be white people as the skulls were not like Indian skulls.”  “It was judged by Dr. Palmer that all of these things had lain here 1400 years.” (Slightly proceeding the Book of Mormon period.) Palmer bought all the artifacts from the mound for $250.00.  This, from Vanished Races, “The authors of these works were undoubtedly the mound building people of the Mississippi Valley.  The wood carving, plastered and tinted walls, painted vases, and the presence of the most precious of all cereals, wheat, are new and striking evidences of a higher social state than we have hitherto thought possible.”  See http://www.ancienthistoricalresearchfoundation.com/index.php/item/508-viable-wheat

Yes, it is believed that wheat is not viable for more than 20 years yet there are new scientific discoveries every day.  That was not the only incident of viable ancient mound wheat.  In 1946 in the desert south of Price, Utah, the floor beneath an Anasazi cliff dwelling gave way revealing a cave and a large cache of wheat.  A sealed container was opened and planted. “Under these conditions it seems as though the vital of this seed remained intact and when brought back again in a suitable germinating environment it was able to come out of its dormant state."  This wheat grew phenomenally large.  (Grames, Deseret News)

  By the way, caves beneath cliff dwellings were used by a much older culture of white skinned, red-haired people.  Their basket type was that of the most ancient tribes of Egypt.  Rather interesting wouldn't you say?  We do not hear about things like that very often.

With your mention of horses, you may be unaware that “A horse bone found at Horse Thief Cave, Wyoming dates to 1100 B.C.” and a “…Dr. Alison has dated horse remains in Canada to 800 B.C. and to 100 A.D.” These examples span both the Jaredite and Nephite timeline. The range of unpublished dates on several bone specimens is from ca. 6,000 B.C. to A.D. 1,400.  Some scholars have now concluded that small, scattered populations of horses likely survived in North America right up to the time of the Spaniards. (Wade E. Miller and Steven Jones) I believe these results justify that the horse mentioned in the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic after all.  ;)

~ Tajara

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Tajara, could you provide links for those? It's hard to tell where you're coming from when you don't give cites - preferably to stuff that can be looked up.

As for Steve Jones, the last I had spoken with him (admittedly in the late 90's) he had any horse bones in pre-columbian strata  independently tested in the 90's. All dated as post-columbian. He never bothered publishing it as it was all negative results. Apparently he's changed his views so I'll be careful what I say in that regard in the future. (This is the first I've heard of anything like this - although there is a session tomorrow at the FAIR conference by Wade Miller on the topic that presumably will discuss this) Although his reputation is in tatters since he became a 911 Truther (thinks the towers were destroyed intentionally by the government and not the airplanes we saw smashing into them). Because of his controversial writings he was pressured to retire from BYU. If there is new evidence I'm all ears. If he got bones independently test. While I think his inexplicable moves relative to 911 urge caution, hopefully he kept to his earlier methodology and had everything independently tested with no Mormons touching the bones.

I tried tracking down Jones work and apparently it's in an article in The Lost History of Ancient America. You can read the article in the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon. It's pretty short. He claims six bone fragments that dated to the post ice age but pre-columbian period. I hope it checks out. That'd be extremely exciting if it does. Although the Horse Thief Cave seems the weakest of his data due to the method used.

Doing some more research I found a response to Jones' chapter that raises some pretty good criticisms. In particular the details are missing from the article on who dated what where and when. That's rather crucial for something that would be paradigm shifting like this. Knowing Jones background I'm kind of shocked he wouldn't supply that detail in the article. Hopefully it'll be forthcoming as without it the data simply won't be accepted.

That said, it really says nothing about whether a Heartland or mesoamerican model is accurate. Jones apparently still supports the mesoamerican model.

Quote

Edward Palmer, Field Assistant of the Smithsonian visited the Payson Mound site in 1877.   “The skeletons were judged to be white people as the skulls were not like Indian skulls.”  “It was judged by Dr. Palmer that all of these things had lain here 1400 years.” (Slightly proceeding the Book of Mormon period.)

Umm. You don't see that as inherently problematic? The Nephites wouldn't have been "white people" (i.e. Europeans) Also modern dating methods were unavailable in the 19th century so his dating has to be seen as problematic. What you say makes it more not less likely they were Spanish. Now of course if the remains can be dated and are pre-columbian then that's significant. What you're providing just isn't.

Quote

That? does not surprise me, but the Book of Mormon was translated in the 1800’s using the word armor defined as 1. Defensive arms; any habit worn? to protect the body in battle….  A skeleton was discovered (also in the 1800’s) wearing armor.  Whether or not it would stop an arrow, an axe, a bullet, or a missile is irrelevant?; it was armor.?  

You're missing the nature of the criticism. Why is it armor? Just because someone in the 19th century thought it was doesn't make it so. The fact it wouldn't stop anything is particularly relevant since the whole point of armor is to stop weaponry. If it can't do that then that's strong evidence that it wasn't armor but was ceremonial. 

Quote

You are wrong, my friend.  I do.  Unquestionably. 

No one with publishing in the field. Individuals can believe all sorts of things of course - the question is why they believe what they believe.

Quote

J. Huston McCulloch Feb. 23, 2005, “The remarkable similarity between the Smithsonian’s Bat Creek inscription and a Paleo-Hebrew phrase published in an 1870 Masonic reference work…demonstrates that its Hebrew affinity should have been apparent even in 1889. However, the two texts are different, even to the number of letters in the two words, and Bat Creek correctly uses the mandatory word divider absent in the Masonic text. The former therefore could not have been copied from the latter, and is not necessarily a fraud as asserted…”  

They're not exact, that's sure. But if you look at them they are so close that it's hard to think they are unrelated. Again the lack of other writings informs how we view that connection. There are lots of good reasons to think it a forgery. There is no evidence to think it authentic that I can see.

I'm being equal opportunity here - I think there is no good public evidence to think the Book fo Mormon isn't a forgery. The reason I think it authentic (although possibly distorted somewhat during the translation method) is due to private religious experiences. But my belief there is not really useful for an other person. So I can't use the Book of Mormon as evidence for say horses to a person who doesn't already believe in the Book of Mormon. 

That you believe these texts are real and not forgeries seems clear. However you appear to not be basing that belief on basis of public evidence. As such I think you'll concede that these examples can't really count as evidence in an argument.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, Calm said:

Oklds, saw you have peeked in recently, any info available on this text?

Not on the text, no.  I refuse to release that in any format.  Two reasons:

First, what if it's wrong?  I'm NOT gonna be the one who spreads false doctrine based on documents which have not been proven to be Scripture.

Second, if it's real, I'm not gonna have any of that foil-hat crowd transcribing those sheets and publishing their own "Book of Lehi".  After it was reported that a General Authority named Bruce Porter had inspected the 116 and declared them authentic in 12/2016, 8 or 10 people came to my home trying to get (pleading, threatening, cajoling) me to give them copies of the sheets.  I never actually spoke with Elder Porter, and never saw any report from him, so cannot verify that part of it.  At that time, I did not even know what a General Authority was.

As far as proving authenticity, I believe I may pretty close.  One of three artifacts recovered from map #2 (which contains sufficient data to locate current location, which has been done) is a small coin, about 2,100 (+/- 80) years old.  The coin, as such, is insignificant, but a metallurgical analysis was done by one of my Dad's friends at JPL.  Mostly copper, a little iron; pretty standard stuff.  What makes that coin significant is that it contains traces of elements endemic to North America.  There are others in the same jar which are much older.  I believe that particular artifact which Thomas recovered from that site proves the authenticity of those sheets.  I also think there are details contained in map #1 (which I cannot correlate to any current georef), which will shed light on all this 'meso-America stuff.

Get it?  That coin, along with a jar of others, was minted (images on both sides) in North America in the first century B.C.  I could be wrong, but I ain't.

Share this post


Link to post

North America runs all the way down to the Guatemalan border and includes all of Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post

The evidence leads me to believe that the Mayans were Lamanites, and that some of them were descended from Laman.  Certainly, by the end of the Book of Mormon, "Lamanite" was more of a political designation, and incorporated all non-Nephites.  There is also evidence that the Hopewell are a Mayan colony that started in Florida and migrated up to the Great Lakes area.   Perhaps they were Nephites, but that does little to suggest where Zarahemla can be found.  It is hard to imagine the Great Lakes as being the narrow neck of land that leads to the land northward.  Nor were the Canadian natives expert in carving their histories on stones.  When some Nephites got lost, up beyond the narrow neck of land, they found a written history on stone.  The Nephites didn't write on stone.  They found it peculiar.  Where can stone histories be found?  Well, Mexico and Guatemala.  It was the Olmec who carved their histories in stone.  It would make more sense to find the Nephite lands south of Mexico and Guatemala, south of a narrow neck of land, far enough south that stone carving would be a novelty.  By Nephite, I mean a Nephite by blood, like Mormon.  Apparently many Nephites had no relation to Nephi, genetically.  Mormon, however, tells us that he is a pure descendent of Nephi.  One wonders if Moroni could make the same claim.  "Pure" seems to indicate an exclusively Nephite ancestry.  

Perhaps the location of the great cataclysm, rather than the location of the narrow neck of land, would do a better job of defining Nephite lands.  The great cataclysm probably occurred in Nicaragua, at the eruption of Apoyeque.  With a VEI of 6, few eruptions in the last 2000 years are in the same category as Apoyeque.  It is hard to describe just how much the eruption changed the entire area around Nicaragua.  From a satellite perspective, the most obvious difference is the large inland sea, which didn't exist before the eruption.  It now covers a third of Nicaragua.  It is easy to imagine cities catching fire, while other cities sink in to the sea.  One common mistake, which I myself might make if I am not careful, is to disregard the change in Nephite lands over the years.  But Zarahemla, will always be Zarahemla.  It was not a city of stone, but a city of wood.  It burned during the great cataclysm.  King Benjamin did not address the people from atop a pyramid, as towers had to be erected to relay his message.  The Mesoamerican temple model does not describe a Nephite temple.  The typical Aztec or Mayan temple was used for human sacrifice, and wasn't in any way modeled after Solomon's temple.  I believe Zarahemla was a city of wooden structures, and not a city of stone pyramids.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, Calm said:

Oklds, saw you have peeked in recently, any info available on this text?

On the text specifically, no.  I've told everything I know, but here's the short version again:

There are 116 SHEETS  (as opposed to PAGES).  The first 88 SHEETS have very small and precise cursive script on both sides (88 SHEETS = 176 PAGES).  Another 26 SHEETS have large and mostly crude cursive script on one side, and 26 SHEETS have notes and scribbling on the backs (26 PAGES).  The last two SHEETS have illustrations on one side.  One is definitely a map; I have been there.  The other one probably is as well, but I cannot correlate that to any georef (doesn't match anything I can find).  My Great-Grand-Father Thomas went to the location on the map, and retrieved:

1.  One round wire-frame thing; I have no idea what it is/was or what it's use was.

2.  The top of a statue's head, broken off about mid-face, made of serpentine rock.

3.  One coin, about the size of a penny, which is almost illegible.

He also got his hands on a long knife/sword, but dropped that and could not reach it to retrieve it.

He told us that there were 10-12 clay jars, about 20 gallons each.  One of these had been broken, with coins spilling out.  There was also enough armor and weaponry to equip 200-300 men.  Several other items which I don't choose to go into.

My Dad's friend and Mother's Cousin's Husband, Dr. Harper (a PhD at JPL), had a metallurgical analysis done of that in 1970 or 71, and found thta it was mostly copper, with a little (4.6%) iron, and four other elements which I had never heard of: Nautneague, Neodymium, Monozite, and Bastnaesite.  Russ declared the report to be erroneous, since at least two these are ONLY found in North America, and therefore could not have (in his opinion) come from here.  Monozite-bearing copper is ONLY found in the eastern half of what is now the Carolinas, so that is where the metal was mined.  The JPL metallurgist dated it at 1,800 to 2,500 years old.   The wire-frame doohickey I played with as a child, and could probably draft a fairly accurate drawing of it.  I do now know where it is, but probably lost during my parent's divorce.  The statue head one of my siblings kept, but don't know what became of it.  I suspect it is long gone.  The coin I got in a box of Dad's stuff after he died.

That should bring everybody up-to-date.  As of now:

I had another metallurgical analysis done which results match that one exactly, with one exception.  They claim it is 2,300 years old, +/- 50 years.  Someone else told me that with the confirmation report, that made it extremely valuable, so I put it in a SD box.  I could have a full-scale analysis done, but it would be a destructive test, and very expensive.  I don't mind having the coin destroyed, since if it is accurate, I can get a lot more.  If it is not, then it was worthless anyway.  But, I cannot afford to do so; I've got too much into this already anyway, and not going to ask anyone else to spend their money on it.  When the weather gets warmer, I intend to go there and basically loot the place.  Then I'll know for sure.  Anybody got any better ideas, I'd love to hear 'em.

Message_1542237689898 (3).jpg

Message_1542236958753.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

oklds, I'd like to hear more on what was used to date the metal and process. Please the more detail of the dating process would be appreciative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2018 at 1:22 PM, oklds said:

I'm not even sure this is a real thing, but if someone has heard of it, would you be so good as to explain it to me, please?

Thanks very much,

Dan

Bottom line == some individuals feel that Book of Mormon geography is a doctrinal issue (14th Article of  Faith), and if you do not believe that the Hill Cumorah referenced in the BOM is in NY, you are on the road to apostasy.

 

Edited by cdowis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 9/17/2018 at 8:25 AM, Robert Rosskopf said:

 It is hard to imagine the Great Lakes as being the narrow neck of land that leads to the land northward.    

They are working on it.  Perhap abit of artistic license on re-drawing the maps will help.

Edited by cdowis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/30/2018 at 12:22 PM, oklds said:

On the text specifically, no.  I've told everything I know, but here's the short version again:

There are 116 SHEETS  (as opposed to PAGES).  The first 88 SHEETS have very small and precise cursive script on both sides (88 SHEETS = 176 PAGES).  Another 26 SHEETS have large and mostly crude cursive script on one side, and 26 SHEETS have notes and scribbling on the backs (26 PAGES).  The last two SHEETS have illustrations on one side.  One is definitely a map; I have been there.  The other one probably is as well, but I cannot correlate that to any georef (doesn't match anything I can find).  My Great-Grand-Father Thomas went to the location on the map, and retrieved:

1.  One round wire-frame thing; I have no idea what it is/was or what it's use was.

2.  The top of a statue's head, broken off about mid-face, made of serpentine rock.

3.  One coin, about the size of a penny, which is almost illegible.

He also got his hands on a long knife/sword, but dropped that and could not reach it to retrieve it.

He told us that there were 10-12 clay jars, about 20 gallons each.  One of these had been broken, with coins spilling out.  There was also enough armor and weaponry to equip 200-300 men.  Several other items which I don't choose to go into.

My Dad's friend and Mother's Cousin's Husband, Dr. Harper (a PhD at JPL), had a metallurgical analysis done of that in 1970 or 71, and found thta it was mostly copper, with a little (4.6%) iron, and four other elements which I had never heard of: Nautneague, Neodymium, Monozite, and Bastnaesite.  Russ declared the report to be erroneous, since at least two these are ONLY found in North America, and therefore could not have (in his opinion) come from here.  Monozite-bearing copper is ONLY found in the eastern half of what is now the Carolinas, so that is where the metal was mined.  The JPL metallurgist dated it at 1,800 to 2,500 years old.   The wire-frame doohickey I played with as a child, and could probably draft a fairly accurate drawing of it.  I do now know where it is, but probably lost during my parent's divorce.  The statue head one of my siblings kept, but don't know what became of it.  I suspect it is long gone.  The coin I got in a box of Dad's stuff after he died.

That should bring everybody up-to-date.  As of now:

I had another metallurgical analysis done which results match that one exactly, with one exception.  They claim it is 2,300 years old, +/- 50 years.  Someone else told me that with the confirmation report, that made it extremely valuable, so I put it in a SD box.  I could have a full-scale analysis done, but it would be a destructive test, and very expensive.  I don't mind having the coin destroyed, since if it is accurate, I can get a lot more.  If it is not, then it was worthless anyway.  But, I cannot afford to do so; I've got too much into this already anyway, and not going to ask anyone else to spend their money on it.  When the weather gets warmer, I intend to go there and basically loot the place.  Then I'll know for sure.  Anybody got any better ideas, I'd love to hear 'em.

Message_1542237689898 (3).jpg

Message_1542236958753.jpg

Never put off til tomorrow what someone else will probably get around to doing next week anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/27/2018 at 9:28 AM, RevTestament said:

I personally do not believe Joseph Smith drew those maps. The handwriting is not his, and the tell-tale is the city in Utah (Moroni) that didn't exist in his day being on at least one of them. I chalk them up to another Mormon fable. They were obviously drawn well after the Saints went to Utah supposedly based on what Joseph had said, and then promoted as being his maps later.

I am interested in his wife's alleged dictation notes, but dubious of those as well.

When I moved to Utah I became somewhat interested in the geography of the Book of Mormon, and began to suspect that the "Hopewell" were somehow directly connected to the BoM. At the time I began to suspect that their DNA might tell a different story which would illuminate the Book of Mormon. This hope has proven somewhat premature. The mtDNA X haplogroup has been shown to pre-exist the BoM era in the Americas to my satisfaction. Rod Meldrum took this, and ran with it, but I am fairly convinced that his mtDNA X haplogroup pre-existed the BoM, whereas he has held onto it, and began to promote young earth science. I view him as a one horse pony show. I am not saying his ideas are completely wrong, but he seemed to latch onto this one idea, and build everything around it, even as scientific evidence against it continued to mount. For example a study of DNA samples from a Hopewell village showed very little haplogroup X mtDNA. They were primarily haplogroup B mtDNA - a very old lineage in the Americas. However, there is lots of evidence to consider besides just DNA. DNA of a small population can become "overwritten" when it is introduced into a much larger population. I believe Meldrum has hung his hat on the wrong tree, although I do believe the native Haplogroup X mtDNA originated in the Middle East. Its mutation history just doesn't fit the BoM narrative. It is probably too ancient by all accounts.  IMHO Meldrum has bent over backwards to resist this evidence. Again, I am not saying the Heartland idea is wrong, but I find Meldrum's model of it unconvincing - as I do Wayne May's. So presently, there is not a published "Heartland model" I support. However, there is almost nothing about any MesoAmerican model I find convincing at all. Quite the contrary, I believe the reliance of scholars on it has hurt the Church, as proponents become convinced there is no "in the dirt archaeology" to support the BoM there.

To answer your OP more succinctly, I believe the name "Heartland model" became connected to Rod Meldrum and Wayne May, and to their ideas. For instance, May promotes  Big Spring (in Carter County, Missouri) as being the Waters of Mormon.  While I do not accept many of their ideas including geographical ideas, this does not necessarily mean I completely discount some of the main thrusts of the Heartland model. I believe there is much to be said for it - just differently than they say it.

You have never seen them, so what gives you the idea that the handwriting was/is not his?  They have never been "promoted as being his maps" EVER.  I am not even sure illustration #1 is a map, but I think it is.  The other I am sure of, because I have been there.  The fact that coinage was found at that location dating to the 4th century BC, and containing elements endemic to North America is irrefutable evidence that people were mining metals in North America and pressing coins with it within 120 years of Lehi's arrival here.

As to the armor and weaponry, I have no idea nor opinion, since I have not had the opportunity to get inside to check it out.  I will, however, sooner or later, then I will know.  Something my Wife mentioned today was that if DNA could be extracted from dried fluids resulting from wounds sustained while wearing it, that would go a long way towards making a connection to a specific ethnicity.

As to the round-ring-ball thingy, I have no idea.  The metal was not corroded at all, and was certainly not copper or bronze.  The spinning piece in the center and the one in one of the rings was of a different metal entirely, but I no not know what that was either.  I also do not know where it went, but I will try to draw it from memory.  If I can get my scanner to work, I will post that.  I and my siblings used to play with it as kids, but I have no idea where it ended up after my parents' divorce.  Probably in the trash, unfortunately.  It was not in Dad's stuff after he died.  Be that as it may, NO ONE has ever seen those illustrations except me and one of my friends, who is actually not a member of the Church, and one ex-banker who neither knew nor cared what they were.

As to Rod Meldrum and his theories, I consider myself biased because I dislike him personally.  However, that does not make him wrong.  In fact, these coins are evidence with great weight that he is almost certainly right.  Think about this:  The metals they were made with came from the western part of what is now the Carolinas.  That metal was used to press coins less than 200 years after Lehi's arrival.  That those coins were in a cache referenced by a map contained in what are euphemistically known as the "lost 116 pages" is evidence that they were from the Nephite culture.  I could be wrong, but I'm not.

BTW, the first 88 SHEETS (176 PAGES) were, in fact, written by Emma Smith, and have absolutely nothing to do with Lehi's 'travelogues'.  They are strictly religious in nature.  The other 26 SHEETS were written by a totally different hand; much larger and cruder.  I suspect those are what gave people the idea that the 116 were the first part of some other Book within the Book of Mormon.  I am inclined to agree with that.  The Book of Mormon itself bears this out; doesn't it say somewhere that the first items transcribed by Joseph Smith were from a different set of plates than the rest?

But the writing/labels on the maps matches that on those SHEETS, and there is nothing in those words which corresponds to any modern reference ("78 miles northeast of Denver" or any such nonsense".  The maps could not have been drawn by Mrs. Smith. I started my career as a draftsman, (back in the day when we used pencils, not CAD systems) and I was known as an 'engraver', since I drew with enough pressure to indent the vellum (very common for old-time draftsmen), so that the lines and writing could be felt clearly from the back side.  These are both like that; the script is light, the lines have indented the paper itself.  Even Harry noticed that when he looked at the SHEETS.

And, yes, I keep capitalizing the words SHEETS and PAGES, since most folks can't seem to grasp (no pun intended) the difference.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...