Horses and Chariots -

[Archon]

This thread is being created by pulling out posts from another thread so that the focus can stay on this topic.

Bob McCue posted an essay. This will be *the last* essay of his to appear on FAIR and only so that the posts responding to it can stay in context. Fair warning has been give to Bob that future essays will be deleted from FAIR - see here)

[Archon]

bob mccue Posted: Mar 30 2006, 03:15 AM :

---------------------------

Chariots and Horses in the Book of Mormon

A Case Study in Apologist Fogspeak

bob mccue

March 28, 2006

http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to consider the possible explanations for how the Book of Mormon came to contain references to horses and chariots when the best available archeological evidence indicates that neither horses nor wheeled vehicles like chariots existed in Americas during the relevant time. While doing this, I will consider some of the approaches Mormon apologists have used to deal with what is a conundrum from the point of view of those who wish to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and it is a reasonably accurate history of what happened in the Americas during the period from roughly 600 BCE to 400 CE.

This essay was inspired by mention on a thread at FAIR (see http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showforum=11) of this topic. A poster criticized my superficial knowledge, since I seemed under the impression that chariots needed wheels to make sense. This brought back a memory that may be useful to some people.

It was while reading about chariots and horses in the Book of Mormon that my cognitive dissonance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance and http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf) rose to the point at which my Mormon testimony started to crumble. Thinking about this made me decide to pull some material out of my archives in that regard, and then I reworked it a bit.

But first, this story requires a little context. Skip to the heading

[Archon]

bob mccue Posted: Mar 30 2006, 03:18 AM:

------------------------------

Before the arrival of Europeans, there was primarily one large domesticated mammal raised as livestock anywhere in the Americas - the llama (dogs were domesticated as well, and limited places in South America that have been ruled out as Book of Mormon locations had guinea pigs). Animals that did exist are not mentioned, such as deer, sloth, monkeys and jaguars. The fact that the Book of Mormon animals don't match the facts on the ground has been acknowledged by Mormon scholars. John Sorenson, who has written extensively in an attempt to match the Book of Mormon with archaeological finds, has suggested that when Mormon writes horses he doesn't really mean horses. In An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Sorenson 1985, p. 299) Sorenson suggests that cattle and oxen could refer to deer or bison. Horses could mean deer or tapir; asses could also mean tapir or llamas. He suggests that elephants could be mammoths, although they were extinct by the time any Book of Mormon people arrived on the continent. Flocks and herds described in the Book of Mormon could have referred to deer, ducks, monkeys and even parrots. This is of course wild speculation - there is no evidence that these creatures were ever domesticated by ancient Americans, and I don't think that Mormon writing 'horse' when he means 'deer' is at all plausible. It shows to what lengths church scholars have to go in order to reconcile the Book of Mormon with the physical evidence (for more details, see Coe 1973; Price 1974; Matheny 1993; Larson 1996; Diamond 1997 offers an overview of animal domestication).

The Book of Mormon describes wheeled chariots, when no wheeled vehicles were made in this hemisphere until long after the Book of Mormon story ends. Some apologists are quick to point out that there were wheeled toys or ritual objects in parts of Mexico, and thus Native Americans knew about the wheel. These artifacts though are not replicas of wheeled vehicles - they are ceramic animals, such as dogs, mounted on wheels. Anthropologists believe the wheeled vehicle was never developed in this hemisphere primarily because there were no large domesticated beasts of burden, such as horses or oxen to pull them. This is probably why plow agriculture did not develop either (Fiedel 1992, p. 182-183).

Stuart Fiedel's Prehistory of the Americas, a college-level textbook, describes the current scientific consensus on wheels, agriculture and livestock in the New World:

[Dale]

On reference I could find to chariots & horses was Alma 18:9. It could refer to the modern horse.

[Archon]

Brant Gardner Posted: Mar 30 2006, 04:08 AM :

--------------------

Bob McCue:

The fallacy in Gardner

[Archon]

Brant Gardner Posted: Mar 30 2006, 04:14 AM

---------------------------

Bob McCue:

The Book of Mormon describes wheeled chariots, when no wheeled vehicles were made in this hemisphere until long after the Book of Mormon story ends.

Brant: I challenge the statement. Please show where the Book of Mormon describes wheeled chariots (other than in a passage from Isaiah).

As you noted yourself, there were wheeled vehicles - they were just small. This suggests that the wheel and axle were known, but nothing remains that indicates they were common. Suggesting that they didn't exist is an argument from silence that is made less probable by the presence of the miniatures.

Still, both parts of your sentence are contrary to fact. An electronic search of "wheel" or "wheels" yields exactly one hit in the Book of Mormon - in a quotation from Isaiah.

[charity]

All of the work of McCue's essay stands on one point, which has as much stability as an ice cube. He acts as if everything there is to know about relevant areas, cultures, etc. is known to archeologists, anthropologists, etc. That ice cube is melting. More and more information is coming to light and applying heat. When the ice cube finally melts to a puddle his little pyramid of logic will fall.

[Archon]

Dale Posted: Mar 30 2006, 04:53 AM :

----------------------

[Dale:] The degree in which a larger scale wheeled vehicle was, or was not in popular use would effect whether examples of it could survive to this day. What's the two wheeled vehicle used by man in china? A man pulls the contraption instead of a horse.

Depending on whether they liked their larger version of a wheeled vehicle, or not would effect how many were made. What if they never had the thought of animals pulling the vehicle?

How did they carry goods for trade without such larger vehicles. If we know the way they did it was popular it indicates that larger wheeled vehicles never was popular among the people. Not than none never existed we simly don't know that they did, or did not have any full sized vehicles.

[Archon]

rcrocket Posted: Mar 30 2006, 05:01 AM:

----------------------------

Mr. Gardner has selected a topic.  We will stick with that.  Off-topic replies are being deleted.  Do not come here to complain.  Do not come here to wave pom-poms.

Cheeseman's article about many wheeled finds in North America is at http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Wheel.htm. Are his sources faulty, I wonder?

But what mystifies me about this thread is that it says nothing new. I'm looking for something new under the sun. Bob, in one paragraph, what is your most significant problem with the Church? Some new discovery, like Will Bagley's claim of a discovery of a new Huntington journal entry, etc.?

rcrocket

[Archon]

bob mccue Posted: Mar 30 2006, 05:11 AM

-----------------

Brant:

I'm afraid that this makes no sense at all for any text I have ever seen. Rather than just make the assertion, would you mind backing it up with anything from the academic world?

We don't need anything from the academic world. Logic will do here.

To provide a more Mesoamerican example of the translation problem, beginning with the Spanish (and continued in English translations) is the use of the translation of "elder sister" in one section of Quetzalcoatl's story. The translation isn't technically wrong, but it might as well be because it is misleading. What it doesn't do is understand that the connotation of "elder sister" in the story is priestess. There is a major conceptual difference in the story based on that change and it is one that can only be discerned by examining the context in which "elder sister" appears.

How is this relevant? I still speak Spanish and used to speak Russian as well, and am well acquainted with translation problems.

The BofM purports to be translated from an unknown language. You can't know what the translation problems might be. You allege translation problems to cover potential anachronisms and point out that we are not justified in our assumption that particular words in the text before us mean what we think they mean. Having made your point re. "horse" and "chariot", how do you stop the virus you have created from spreading to every other word in the text?

In real translation cases you can go to the source language and/or the empirical context and define to a degree the scope for potential error. You can't do that in this case. So, you either accept that a crucial part of the context is the text's stated purpose - to communicate to people more or less now in a fashion that will stand as a second testament to Christ, and hence current English usage is the default case, or you go with the position you stated which has the problem I have pointed out.

You can pick your problem. You can

[cjcampbell]

Well, if the intent is to prove that tapirs are not horses, then good job. I don't think tapirs are horses, either, and I really don't know anyone who seriously believes that. As near as I can tell it is a straw man argument -- you are refuting an argument that no one really makes.

At the same time, I think there are serious flaws to the theory that there were no precolumbian horses. Even assuming that the Book of Mormon is wrong and that all the native Americans are really Asians that crossed the land bridge to Alaska, it is odd that anyone asserts that the Asians would not have brought horses with them. I will say it: it is flat-out ridiculous to aver that Mongols would not bring horses when migrating to America.

Columbus shows up with a few horses and suddenly every plains and Northwest tribe in America has horses, but not the Caribs or other tribes first contacted by the Spanish. How did that happen? Why did the Indians ride piebald or pinto horses when the Spanish rode Arabians? How did horsemanship spread so quickly? Why do the Northwest Indian tribes all have traditions indicating horse ownership that predate the Spanish by several centuries? How did the Indians get a purebred horse, the Appaloosa, that was unknown to the Spanish? Why is it that most of the tribes that the Spanish contacted directly did not adopt the horse immediately, but the earliest of plains Indians by European explorers all mention horses? If the Indians were copying the Spaniards, why didn't they also adopt saddles and stirrups? Saddles and stirrups are not exactly advanced technology and well within the capability of any of the native American tribes to manufacture. Why did the plains Indians have a horse culture more akin to the Mongols than to the Spanish? Does it not make more sense to say that the horses were already in America when the Spanish got here?

Tell you what: let us do some DNA testing on American Indian horses (especially Appaloosas, for example, which greatly resemble Chinese horses) and see if they came from Spain. Or, since no one would probably be any happier with that than they were with DNA testing on people (although I have to admit it would be hilarious to watch the Saints using DNA to prove that the horses were Asian while denying that it proves the people were; conversely, it would be equally entertaining watching the critics using DNA to prove that the people were Asian but denying that DNA tests are relevant to horses), then we can just go back to arguing about tapirs, llamas, and giant sloths.

Now, quotes from Isaiah aside (and Isaiah knew what chariots were) -- wait, that takes out just about every reference to wheels, doesn't it?

Why doesn't the Bible mention monkeys? Monkeys were indigenous to the Middle East, yet the Bible does not mention them. Why not? Was the Bible actually written by people unaquainted with monkeys?

How come the Bible mentions cockatrices, dragons, sea monsters, and other fabulous animals? Doesn't that prove that the Bible could not have been written by ancient Hebrews?

Why would not a prophet seeing the future describe an automobile or other vehicle as a chariot? What other term would he use?

Why would not a late neolithic Jaredite refer to a mammoth as an elephant? Who is being intellectually dishonest here?

[cjcampbell]

I have a few questions to ask, Book of Mormon horses aside.

There has been considerable research of late into pre-columbian Chinese contacts with America. The book 1421 for example cites numerous such evidences, such as that American turkeys were found on the Silk Road before 1492, that there are more than 40 pre-columbian illustrations of horses found in America, that the Spanish found chickens in America which come from Asia, that Spanish explorers found other Asian crops such as coconuts, bananas and rice growing in America, that the first explorers in Peru found horses, etc. My question is, how reliable is this research and how widely accepted is it?

[Brant Gardner]

Dale:

How did they carry goods for trade without such larger vehicles.

Human transport. They used a tumpline, which is a strap that counterbalances the weight by looping under the item on the back and being strapped across the forehead. It helps distribute the weight and makes it easier to carrier a heavier load a longer distance. It still doesn't match the carrying capacity of Old World beasts of burden, but that is how it was, and still is, done.

[Brant Gardner]

Bob McCue:

How is this relevant? I still speak Spanish and used to speak Russian as well, and am well acquainted with translation problems.

I am always amazed that when relevant information from parallel cases is presented, I ge the question "how is this relevant?" That confirms that you are sufficiently caught up in your "logic" that you are missing the point entirely.

Let's break things down simply.

1) Texts exist that are translations but for which no original exists. I hope you accept that. If not, there isn't much reason to talk, because there really can be no debate on this. The case I have used for years is the Histoire du Mechique, which is a French text translating a lost original Spanish text (and the Spanish text described information communicated in Nahuatl).

2) Translators can introduce anachronisms in the translation that are not in the original. Again, I hope you accept this, because it should not be in doubt. We have been noting examples in the KJV.

Now, according to your logic, if we did not have an original for the Bible, we would be forced to assume that none of it could be understood because we know that the word "candle" is an anachronism. Your argument is more than the issue of anachronisms, it is a question about how translations are done.

I am surprised that you speak other languages and can be so completely illogical about the translation process. The reason that I asked for some academic support for your logic is that in this case, your logic won't do at all. Your "logic" contradicts known facts and practices.

When that happens, it isn't usable logic.

Now, returning to the example I gave, how is it relevant? The issue is whether or not every word in a translation is an accurate depiction of the semantic field of the original language. In this case, it is not. The second issue is whether or not we can discern the full meaning from the translation. In this case, we cannot. When we cannot, what recourse do we have? Contextual examination.

This brings me to:

3) When there is a lexical item in a translation that is in question, the first step to determine its semantic field is contextual examination - not the assumption that its semantic field is dictated by the translator's language. I hope you agree with that - because it ought to be more than logical - it is practice. If you are suggesting that this is not the case, please demonstrate.

The BofM purports to be translated from an unknown language. You can't know what the translation problems might be.

I disagree entirely. I think you can know quite a bit about what the translation issues are. While languages are certainly different, the issues of translation remain relatively constant in gross terms. It is in the translation of particular words or phrases that it becomes unique. No matter what the posited language, the problem of communicating that language in a different language is pretty similar.

If you disagree, I would love to know how. You could, for instance, attempt to discern the gross difference between translating Spanish and Russian into English. While the source language is certainly different, please explain how the English differs after translation. Is English not capable of translating the two languages? How can that be if, as you appear to assume, translation issues must be unique?

One of the important steps is to determine whether or not it is a translation before arguing methods of translation. I propose that you cannot use assumptions about translation to determine translation.

If you think differently, please explain how. Examples would be nice.

I think you have to determine a translation by examining the text against a context. That is what was done for the Historie du Mechique - which is accepted as a very valuable text in spite of the absence of an original. If you disagree, please indicate how.

You allege translation problems to cover potential anachronisms and point out that we are not justified in our assumption that particular words in the text before us mean what we think they mean.

You are echoing Dan's argument here. I rejected that argument at the time and do so again. I do not allege translation problems to "cover potential anachronisms." That is not my method, as I have attempted to explain very carefully. If you miss that explanation, I fear for your ability to extract useful information from the written word.

I will attempt again to clarify. When you have an issue in a text, you must examine that issue. In the case of the alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, we need to know where they came from. There are two options: 1) the text is modern, 2) the text is ancient and the anachronisms are in the translation.

Both of those possibilities exist in other texts. You cannot chose between the two without an examination and without builidng a case from the text. To assume one or the other denies the scientific approach to the text and leads only to a confirmation of one's original assumptions.

Since I don't want to confirm an assumption, I suggest that we do with them what must be done with any questionable issue in any translation - such as the "elder sister." We have to look at the context to determine what the meaning ought to be. In the case of "elder sister," while we know how that translation occurred, we also know that it is not the best translation of the word. "Priestess" is better.

That is the process. If you disagree, please indicate how. Examples will be good, because I cannot accept your logic on its face. It requires some support from the real world, which appears to contradict it.

Having made your point re. "horse" and "chariot", how do you stop the virus you have created from spreading to every other word in the text?

Silly logic. One may assume that virtually any word must be corroborated by context, but the vast majority of words in a translation don't trigger a question when we read them. When a modern translator renders numbers in English from a Quiche original, he necessarily loses information. Quiche uses different numbers depending upon whether the thing being counted is spherical or cylindrical. Nevertheless, we don't get an incomprehensible text because the English does not capture the full semantic meaning. That a semantic disconnect may occur is well known (you should be able to find examples in Spanish or Russian). That does not mean, however, that we cannot understand the translation.

When I read the Anderson and Dibble English translation of the Nahuatl Florentine codex, I have no problem understanding the English. However, my understanding of the Nahuatl context does, at times, signal that there is a word that is used that has a shift in meaning that might not represent a Nahuatl idea. In those cases, I go to the other language.

Obviously, I can do that because the original is there. However, the point is that I can recognize the need for that from the English text - without having read the original. That also tells me that when I recognize something similar, say in the Histoire du Mechique, that I will be justified in questioning the translation of a particular word even when I don't question the entire text.

The real world contradicts the particular "logic" you are using. If you want to continue with it, please support it.

In real translation cases you can go to the source language and/or the empirical context and define to a degree the scope for potential error.

I'm sorry. Real translations exist without the language that they are translated from. I am familiar with the Histoire du Mechique. There are a number of biblical period texts that are only known in translation.

You suggestion that a "real translation" exists only when there is an extant original is demonstrably incorrect. I am sure you understand what happens to a logical argument if the beginning premise is incorrect.

To anticipate the next issue, it is also not only possible, but a practice, to attempt to determine the accuracy of a translation when there is no original. For instance, we have the various arguments for certain Aramaic originals that underlay (but are lost for) the Greek texts for some of the New Testament.

Your statement and its implication are simply incorrect.

You can't do that in this case.

Correct. We cannot check the original text. Since we cannot, we must move to the things that we can do - such as the techniques used to validate the Histoire du Mechique. Surely you don't think scholarship is as limited as you portray it?

So, you either accept that a crucial part of the context is the text's stated purpose - to communicate to people more or less now in a fashion that will stand as a second testament to Christ, and hence current English usage is the default case, or you go with the position you stated which has the problem I have pointed out.

Not at all. Your reductionist conclusion ignores scholarly literature that directly contradicts it.

Are you suggesting that scholars don't know what they are doing, but you know better?

[cjcampbell]

I still don't know whether the fact that monkeys are not mentioned proves that the Bible could not have been written by Hebrews. Also, dragons are Chinese in origin, are they not? Why would Hebrews mention a Chinese mythical beast? Tell me why the same arguments purported to prove that Hebrews did not write the Book of Mormon do not also prove that Hebrews did not write the Bible.

I have asked this question several times now and still have not received an answer. I am waiting patiently....

[Zakuska]

Must a Chariot have wheels...? Wasn't there a thread on here a few days ago about this?

1 Chr 28:18 And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.

These also seem to point to wheeless "chariots"...

2 Kgs. 9: 28

28 And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David.

2 Kgs. 23: 30

30 And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father

[bob mccue]

Brant and cj,

I will get back to you re. the points above. In the meantime, please address this point from my notes:

And here I will re-emphasize a point mentioned above that should pile drive the issue home for non-Mormons, and would for any Mormon who looked at a similar situation involving another religion. Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon. This should remind us of Scientology and Young Earth Creationism. Scientology

[bob mccue]

Brant:

I am always amazed that when relevant information from parallel cases is presented, I ge the question "how is this relevant?" That confirms that you are sufficiently caught up in your "logic" that you are missing the point entirely.

Let me first say that I read the entire exchange between you and Vogel. I understand your point, and will not spend anything like the time Vogel spent with you.

The case you allege as parallel is not. The language and other aspects of context are mostly unknown. For reasons I have already indicated, that makes a huge difference.

I think you have to determine a translation by examining the text against a context. That is what was done for the Historie du Mechique - which is accepted as a very valuable text in spite of the absence of an original. If you disagree, please indicate how.

Thank you for making my point. The context includes the language. It also includes the empirical reality of the culture that produced the original text. We know nothing about the language. What we know close to nothing about the cultural reality, beyond what is in the text. Remember your accusation of Vogel of circularity? Here we have real circularity. The uncertain text becomes its own cultural context.

Since I don't want to confirm an assumption, I suggest that we do with them what must be done with any questionable issue in any translation - such as the "elder sister." We have to look at the context to determine what the meaning ought to be. In the case of "elder sister," while we know how that translation occurred, we also know that it is not the best translation of the word. "Priestess" is better.

That is the process. If you disagree, please indicate how. Examples will be good, because I cannot accept your logic on its face. It requires some support from the real world, which appears to contradict it.

I agree with this method. In the case of the Book of Mormon, how do you test the translation? If it can

[gtaggart]

Brant and cj,

I will get back to you re. the points above. In the meantime, please address this point from my notes:

And here I will re-emphasize a point mentioned above that should pile drive the issue home for non-Mormons, and would for any Mormon who looked at a similar situation involving another religion. Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon. This should remind us of Scientology and Young Earth Creationism. Scientology

[Aluwid]

And here I will re-emphasize a point mentioned above that should pile drive the issue home for non-Mormons, and would for any Mormon who looked at a similar situation involving another religion. Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon.

I can't state whether this is true or not, but I can tell you that it doesn't matter. Assuming that what you are stating is correct it would appear that the current bulk of scientific research does not agree with the Book of Mormon account. I fail to see the problem here unless someone is trying to teach a secular history course using the Book of Mormon as their subject guide.

Will future discoveries and research lend more support to the Book of Mormon? Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Should we change our belief system based on the latest archealogical discovery and consensus? If so then aren't we worshiping science, not religion?

In my mind the bottom line is that I wasn't present during the timeline of the Book of Mormon. Just like any other historical event there is no way for me to scientifically "prove" that the events occurred as the book states that they did. It can be "proven" or "disproven" as far as the currently known and understood data is concerned, but there is no way to prevent future discoveries or better understanding from changing the final verdict in the other way. Given my finite lifespan, I can't wait around to see what science decides at the end of it all, I need someway to know for myself now, and science and history can't give me that.

[Kevin Christensen]

I read the whole "Chariots and Chariots in the Book of Mormon" essay, wondering all the while, "When is he actually going to get around to looking at the actual texts in question, to actually define the problem, rather than unconstrained pontificating at interminable length and irrelevance?" Finally, at the very end, we get the texts, interestingly enough, without the slightest commentary to distinguish which are Old World writings or quotations, and which are New World. No notice of the interesting absences of horses and chariots in any of the battle accounts. When he finally gets round to the actual sources, he has nothing to say.

All very enlightening, though, not of course, in the direction he intended.

The selective use of authorities (pay attention to dates and expertise) and of personal speculations as a way around actual consideration of text and context is also very telling.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Moksha]

Also, dragons are Chinese in origin, are they not? Why would Hebrews mention a Chinese mythical beast?

Could the ancient Hebrews have been Chinese? That could explain the ancient Hebrews not eating pork noodles. They did not eat pork noodles in the Book of Mormon as well. More proof.

[Brant Gardner]

Bob McCue:

Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't expect them to. There isn't a particular reason why they would be interested. There are a couple of reasons why they wouldn't:

1) Established preferences. There are some real ones out there. One of them eschews anything that appears to promote diffusionism - regardless of who proposes it. Since that is one of the categories LDS writers are placed in (whether warranted or not) their presence in that category would exclude them from those publications. This is changing a little, but not much.

2) Remembrance of things past. Many scholars assume that the current crop of scholarship is simply repeating some of the very questionable work from before. That isn't correct, but the perception precludes consideration.

3) With what I have seen as some of the best information for the Book of Mormon, it isn't instructive to the larger discipline. It may help us understsand the Book of Mormon, but since it doesn't tell us anything new about the populations in the New World, it is uninteresting.

This should remind us of Scientology and Young Earth Creationism.

Only if the reasons were the same, and they are not. Rather than glibly provide a toss-off comparison, you really ought to engage in the specifics. They are very different and are being proposed by people who have experience in archaeology and ethnohistory for both the Old World and the New.

Scientology

[Quantum See]

Brant and cj,

I will get back to you re. the points above.  In the meantime, please address this point from my notes:

And here I will re-emphasize a point mentioned above that should pile drive the issue home for non-Mormons, and would for any Mormon who looked at a similar situation involving another religion. Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon. This should remind us of Scientology and Young Earth Creationism. Scientology

[gtaggart]

Bob, you need to get out more.