Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A Horse is of Course a Horse of Course


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Interesting story getting attention this morning. Apparently a thesis argues for pre-Columbian horses particularly among the Lakota/Cheyenne. The story is in the "Indian Country Today" newspaper. That this is the only source ought raise red flags. I'd wait to hear archaeologists weigh in before getting too excited as well as looking at the thesis rather than a newspaper summary. As we've discussed before newspapers, particulary in this media environment, have big incentives to emphasize sensationalism and not always contextualize things well.

A lot of the thesis and newspaper bring up things we've all seen in apologetic writings before.

Here's one quote: 

“Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

 

You got the lyric wrong in the title. Was that on purpose? 

Link to comment

Sounds interesting.  I think it is funny that her name is Running Horse - is this her attempt to tie her  given name/identity to a pure bred native culture instead of being identified as a Western introduction?  There are some compelling arguments though.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rpn said:

This is a link to the dissertation:  I think it is free to read.   https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1895090520.html?FMT=AI

Interesting stuff.  The Church and apologetic resources are mentioned many times in it.  Footnote 371 on p. 138 is noteworthy:

Quote

With regard to scientific research on this subject, it is important to note that the Mormon Church has put some emphasis and financial backing toward deciphering the history of the horse in the Americas. As the Book of Mormon describes horses in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus, critics have long used the fact that “there were no horses in the Americas” as proof that their doctrine is not valid. However, just because a particular group has an interest in a topic and wishes to support research being done in the area does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased, especially when independent laboratories are used.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Interesting stuff.  The Church and apologetic resources are mentioned many times in it.  Footnote 371 on p. 138 is noteworthy:

Thanks,

-Smac

So did she say that the Church funded her research?   Or just that she'd considered the results of what it has funded?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

“Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

Does this refer to Pedro de Quejos, who landed in South Carolina in 1521 on a slaving expedition?  https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/spanish-exploration .  There are plenty of ways in which Spanish horses could have been in the Carolinas at that early date.  Juan Ponce de León was in Florida already in 1513.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Florida .

Link to comment
On 7/13/2019 at 12:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Does this refer to Pedro de Quejos, who landed in South Carolina in 1521 on a slaving expedition?  https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/spanish-exploration .  There are plenty of ways in which Spanish horses could have been in the Carolinas at that early date.  Juan Ponce de León was in Florida already in 1513.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Florida .

But wasn't it Ponce de Leon's second 1521 expedition the one that included documented horses?

From the link in the quote:

"In 1512 Juan Ponce de León, governor of Puerto Rico, received royal permission to search for land north of Cuba. On March 3, 1513, his expedition departed from Punta Aguada, Puerto Rico, sailing north in three ships.[15] In late March, he spotted a small island (almost certainly one of the Bahamas) but did not land. On April 2, Ponce de León spotted the east coast of the Florida peninsula and went ashore the next day at an exact location that has been lost to time.[16] Assuming that he had found a large island, he claimed the land for Spain and named it La Florida, because it was the season of Pascua Florida ("Flowery Easter") and because much of the vegetation was in bloom.[17] After briefly exploring the area around their landing site, the expedition returned to their ships and sailed south to map the coast, encountering the Gulf Stream along the way. The expedition followed Florida's coastline all the way around the Florida Keys and north to map a portion of the Southwest Florida coast before returning to Puerto Rico.

Ponce de León did not have substantial documented interactions with Native Americans during his voyage. However, the peoples he met (likely the Timucua, Tequesta, and Calusa) were mostly hostile at first contact and knew a few Castilian words, lending credence to the idea that they had already been visited by Spanish raiders.[3]:106–110"

Edited by rpn
Link to comment
Quote

However, just because a particular group has an interest in a topic and wishes to support research being done in the area does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased, especially when independent laboratories are used.

Actually, that's exactly what the means.  The bias just needs to be acknowledged and compensated for.  But to pretend that a Church can approach questions regarding their foundational book of scripture without bias is facile.

Link to comment
On 7/12/2019 at 9:11 PM, clarkgoble said:

Interesting story getting attention this morning. Apparently a thesis argues for pre-Columbian horses particularly among the Lakota/Cheyenne. The story is in the "Indian Country Today" newspaper. That this is the only source ought raise red flags. I'd wait to hear archaeologists weigh in before getting too excited as well as looking at the thesis rather than a newspaper summary. As we've discussed before newspapers, particulary in this media environment, have big incentives to emphasize sensationalism and not always contextualize things well.

A lot of the thesis and newspaper bring up things we've all seen in apologetic writings before.

Here's one quote: 

“Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

 

In general I agree with this sort of analysis. Horses have always been valuable assets, and the idea that they somehow just got loose and started running around on their own is rather silly IMHO.

 

Even if natives saw wild horses, it’s not obvious that they could be domesticated or trained, nor how to go about doing so.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, cinepro said:

Actually, that's exactly what the means.  The bias just needs to be acknowledged and compensated for.  But to pretend that a Church can approach questions regarding their foundational book of scripture without bias is facile.

I don't think that is what is being said.  You've glossed over something, cinepro.

If I have a strong religious belief that, say, ancient aliens built the pyramids in Egypt, then I am biased towards that.  If I then hire an independent researcher to find out if I am right, and do not interfere with the researcher's research (say by paying upfront regardless of the eventual result), then while I am definitely still approaching the question with a bias, the results of the research is not necessarily biased, however it falls out.  That is what it means when it says: "...does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased" (italics added) " especially when independent laboratories are used."

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 7/15/2019 at 11:36 AM, Stargazer said:

I don't think that is what is being said.  You've glossed over something, cinepro.

If I have a strong religious belief that, say, ancient aliens built the pyramids in Egypt, then I am biased towards that.  If I then hire an independent researcher to find out if I am right, and do not interfere with the researcher's research (say by paying upfront regardless of the eventual result), then while I am definitely still approaching the question with a bias, the results of the research is not necessarily biased, however it falls out.  That is what it means when it says: "...does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased" (italics added) " especially when independent laboratories are used."

So you're saying that if an independent researcher is being funded by a group that strongly believes aliens built the pyramids, and he knows the money is coming from such a group, that bias hasn't entered into the equation?

It sounds good in theory, but I don't believe it for a second.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, cinepro said:
Quote

I don't think that is what is being said.  You've glossed over something, cinepro.

If I have a strong religious belief that, say, ancient aliens built the pyramids in Egypt, then I am biased towards that.  If I then hire an independent researcher to find out if I am right, and do not interfere with the researcher's research (say by paying upfront regardless of the eventual result), then while I am definitely still approaching the question with a bias, the results of the research is not necessarily biased, however it falls out.  That is what it means when it says: "...does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased" (italics added) " especially when independent laboratories are used."

So you're saying that if an independent researcher is being funded by a group that strongly believes aliens built the pyramids, and he knows the money is coming from such a group, that bias hasn't entered into the equation?

The author accounts for that possibility, hence her statement that  "just because a particular group has an interest in a topic and wishes to support research being done in the area does not mean that their scientific findings are necessarily biased, especially when independent laboratories are used" (emphases added).

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It sounds good in theory, but I don't believe it for a second.

I think the possibility of bias is real.  I acknowledge that.  But the key here is that it is a possibility, not a certainty.  Hence the reasonableness of looking at the data, and relying on independent resources (labs, in this instance).

But can't concerns about bias be said to exist in most scientific/academic circumstances?  Don't we always need to guard against the possibility of bias?

The dissertation's author (Yvette Running Horse Collin) drops this footnote in relation to her citation to a blog post discussing assumptions made about petroglyphs.  Specifically, that glyphs showing men astride "horses" are axiomatically deemed post-Columbian because "everyone knows there were no horses in the Americas before the Spanish arrived."  The blog post, in turn, is mostly examining "independent" analyses of these glyphs, and posing interesting questions/observations about them.

I'm not sure the blogger's assessment of these things is accurate, but that is neither here nor there.  The dissertation author is openly acknowledging that the Church is potentially partial/biased ("With regard to scientific research on this subject, it is important to note that the Mormon Church has put some emphasis and financial backing toward deciphering the history of the horse in the Americas"), but she goes on to point out, correctly, that this is not per se bias, just the possibility of it, and that this possibility can be mitigated by relying on "independent" sources.

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I am surprised by how little she treats the curly horse.  It's probably the best example of pre-Columbian horses.

According to this article - the dissertation author 

Quote

currently takes care of over 100 horses she claims to be descendants of the ancient horse of the Americas. Some have manes that grow down to the ground. Some have stripes on their legs. Some have spots all over. Some are much smaller than most horses. Some have curly hair. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 7/17/2019 at 8:23 PM, cinepro said:

So you're saying that if an independent researcher is being funded by a group that strongly believes aliens built the pyramids, and he knows the money is coming from such a group, that bias hasn't entered into the equation?

It sounds good in theory, but I don't believe it for a second.

Bias enters into EVERY equation. The only question is: must the bias necessarily require that the results be considered invalid?

Let's flip that over.  A group strongly believes the pyramids was built by the Egyptians using engineering techniques appropriate to the culture but unknown to us. This group hires an independent researcher to prove this.  Must the results of that research be considered invalid necessarily due to the bias?

Ever see the film "My Cousin Vinny"?  The DA and the Sheriff were convinced of the guilt of the two "yoots".  Vinny, the lawyer brought in by one of the "yoots," was convinced the two "yoots" were innocent.  Both sides were incredibly biased.  Eventually Vinny convinced the DA that they were actually innocent, and the charges were dismissed.  But did the bias on both sides militate for the invalidity of the results?

All I am saying is that if the results OF ANYTHING can be scientifically verified, it doesn't matter in the least bit if the group who hired the people who came up with the results believed that the results were going to fall out in that way.  The history of science is replete with theories which were overthrown by people who were biased against those theories -- yet their bias did not make their research invalid.

Virtually NO ONE outside of Latter-day Saints believe that horses were extant in North America before Columbus.  The opposite viewpoint is the currently accepted scientific viewpoint, and virtually NO ONE outside of the Latter-day Saints cares about the matter.  In fact, the bias against horses being extant in NA before Columbus is so strong that every result that contradicts it is considered contaminated -- all because of bias.  So, what you're saying is that the only people who are precluded due to bias from investigating a matter are those who have no interest in the results.  And that, in my humble opinion, is poppycock.

What matters is the truth.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 7/22/2019 at 5:47 AM, Stargazer said:

 

Virtually NO ONE outside of Latter-day Saints believe that horses were extant in North America before Columbus.  The opposite viewpoint is the currently accepted scientific viewpoint, and virtually NO ONE outside of the Latter-day Saints cares about the matter.  In fact, the bias against horses being extant in NA before Columbus is so strong that every result that contradicts it is considered contaminated -- all because of bias.  So, what you're saying is that the only people who are precluded due to bias from investigating a matter are those who have no interest in the results.  And that, in my humble opinion, is poppycock.

What matters is the truth.

Whereas I actually agree with you, I find that many diffusionists disagree.  

Award-winning scientific author Charles Mann, and the author of 1491, theorizes that the Nez Perce had the Appaloosa horse before Columbus.   This website discusses this theory a little.  https://wildhorseeducation.org/musings-on-the-origin-of-the-horse-in-north-america/.   He used to maintain a website discussing this theory in greater detail, which I have posted on this board years ago, but now I cannot find the site.

It has been awhile since I studied this issue, but one of Prof. Berry Fell's students published a book of precolumbian artwork depicting horses, or so she claimed.  I'm sorry I don't have the reference.

Then there is the oft-cited work of Mexican cenotes, where horse finds of the American (not European) horse bones have been found in stratified diggings to a period shortly before Columbus.  Critics have suggested that these finds were salted, but they were excavated by a Smithsonian archaeologist. 

Having said all that, I don't believe these stories but have no evidence to counter them.  Such is the problem a lot of diffusion evidence.   Lots of contradictions. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
On 7/22/2019 at 6:47 AM, Stargazer said:

Virtually NO ONE outside of Latter-day Saints believe that horses were extant in North America before Columbus.  The opposite viewpoint is the currently accepted scientific viewpoint, and virtually NO ONE outside of the Latter-day Saints cares about the matter.  In fact, the bias against horses being extant in NA before Columbus is so strong that every result that contradicts it is considered contaminated -- all because of bias.  So, what you're saying is that the only people who are precluded due to bias from investigating a matter are those who have no interest in the results.  And that, in my humble opinion, is poppycock.

Doesn't the OP completely undermine that claim?  Clearly native Americans disagree. They may well be wrong, but surely their views matter. This seems unfortunately dismissive of their views.

I'd add that I don't think horses are required by the Book of Mormon given semantic drift. I'm not even sure anything like a majority of apologists believe in Book of Mormon horses. I think that the burden of proof is definitely on those arguing for domisticated horses prior to Columbus. Thus far I've not seen any data that would really convince me there are such horses. There are somethings, mentioned in the OP thesis, that point to the possibility of such things. We just haven't found the bones I think we'd expect if there were these herds of horses.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
On 7/24/2019 at 12:10 AM, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't the OP completely undermine that claim?  Clearly native Americans disagree. They may well be wrong, but surely their views matter. This seems unfortunately dismissive of their views.

I'd add that I don't think horses are required by the Book of Mormon given semantic drift. I'm not even sure anything like a majority of apologists believe in Book of Mormon horses. I think that the burden of proof is definitely on those arguing for domisticated horses prior to Columbus. Thus far I've not seen any data that would really convince me there are such horses. There are somethings, mentioned in the OP thesis, that point to the possibility of such things. We just haven't found the bones I think we'd expect if there were these herds of horses.

Yeah, but even if there were herds, are we absolutely going to find bones? I found the following sentence at "Question: What role do horses NOT play in the Book of Mormon" at FAIR Mormon Answers:

"There are societies in which the horse was vital, such as among the Hun warriors of Asia and Eastern Europe, for whom horses were a sign of wealth and status, and for whom they were essential for food, clothing, and war. Yet, there is no known horse bone from this period in the archaeological record."

Which refers to "S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267."

FWIW

Link to comment
On 7/24/2019 at 12:10 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'd add that I don't think horses are required by the Book of Mormon given semantic drift.

Although I look completely caucasian, I have American Indian ancestry, and some cultural affiliation, namely some knowledge of my tribe's language.  And in that language, the word for "deer" is "ku-mi".  In an account published in the Overland Monthly in the late 19th Century, Lieutenant Augustus Tassin records having interviewed one of my ancestors, and in the interview he quotes my ancestor on certain matters.  In these quotations Tassin records him using the native word for "deer" when speaking of both horses and cows belonging to the whites.  Is this what you mean by "semantic drift"?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...