Scholars Seek Site Of 1540 Battle

[Gervin]

How do you propose to determine whether or not a BOM city corresponds or does not correspond to an ancient pre-Classic Mesoamerican city.

By first establishing withh some degree of certainty that the geographic and cultural descriptors in the Book of Mormon point to a pre-Classic Mesoamerican location. By examing the archaeological record and looking for clues that allow for a contact with Book of Mormon people, religion, culture, language, art, etc., however limited one thinks that record may be (and while the archaeological picture is incomplete it is certainly not without signficant discoveries of varying scales). By using scientific methods for rc dating strata, artifacts, etc. By engaging the scientific / anthropology communiity in the objective and critical review of hypotheses, field work, conclusions.

In my world, it requires:

1- We have a BOM city name

2- We have a pre-Classic Mesoamerican city name

3- We compare and contrast the two to see if there is or is not a correlation

Since you're satisfied that the Book of Mormon cities have been found then either everything I mentioned has been done to your complete satisfaction ... or it isn't pertinent. I won't make any assumptions but if your satisfied that Mormon cities have been found and only have to be identified it's clear you are operating on your no. 3.

Without Pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names, there is absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities with BOM cities.

Without the things I mentioned there is no evidence that Pre-Classic Mesoamerican cities have anything in the world to do with the cities named in the Book of Mormon. That evidence doesn't exist - at least not in a form that reasonable professionals and experts would agree on with you.

[Daniel Peterson]

In other words, M. Gervin's method of determining whether or not a Book of Mormon city does or does not correspond to a city of the Mesoamerican pre-Classic is . . . to concentrate on a different question.

"How do you learn to play baseball, M. Gervin?"

"By first determining whether I want to learn to play baseball, or football, or mumbly peg."

"How does one learn to play the violin, O Master Gervin?"

"One learns to play the violin, O my student, by first considering the question of whether one wants to learn to play the bagpipes, the kettle drum, or the violin."

M. Gervin's answer here is designed to enable him to avoid (or at least postpone) responding to the challenge posed to him by Professor Hamblin, which was how he intended to compare A (Book of Mormon city names) to B (pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names) without troubling himself to know anything at all about B. It is an exercise in obfuscation and evasion.

His notion that Professor Hamblin is "operating on [his] no. 3" shows how completely he has missed Professor Hamblin's point. Which he will continue to do, as long as he persists in concentrating on evading the challenge that Professor Hamblin presented to him.

[cinepro]

But now you evidently have no intention of making good on your boast. You won't demonstrate your remarkable capacity to fit Oz, Middle Earth, or any other fictitious land into the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica.

But Dr. Peterson, the work has already been done for me. Archaeologists have been documenting Ozian artifacts for years, but critics such as yourself are blind to their discoveries. It should also be noted that the Oz books do contain references to the English names of such places as Kansas, and Philadelphia, so it can't be said that none of the Oz cities have been found. Skeptics only have a hard time believing in the unknown places (yet they still won't even acknowledge the unbelievably accurate descriptions of Kansas and Philedelphia in the books! And L. Frank Baum knew little about these places!)

It is also a sad fact that critics and traditional LDS archaeologists are pre-disposed to see these Ozian artifacts in ways that fit their preconcieved notions. No LDS researcher would dare sacrifice credibility by trying to publish a paper in FARMS that claims a location for the ancient Emerald City, or Mount Munch in the land of the Munchkins. Thus, most archaeologists who publish their faith promoting research in the Journal Of Book of Oz Studies keep quiet about their true beliefs in the professional arena. They'd speak out about it if they could, but it's their closed-minded peers, you understand.

Besides, how would a researcher even recognize an Ozian city if he found it? Tell me, Dr. Peterson, what should we expect to find in the ground?

Keeping in mind that entry to Ozian lands can span boundaries of both distance and time, I am a proponent of the Kansas-geographic model for Oz lands, wherein the events in Oz are centered around the Emerald City located near the modern town of Pierre, South Dakota, with Winkie country extending to Montana and Wyoming, Munchkin Country in to Iowa and Wisconsin, Quadling Country through Nebraska and Kansas, and of course Gillikin Country north to the Canadian border. The geography is striking for it's coherence in space and time for locations of roads, cities and rivers, as well as the well known magical properties of many landmarks such Devil's Tower (obviously the same as Winkie Sun-Top Mountain) and the unusual properties of Slaughton, Minnesota couldn't be anything but an artifact of the Invisible Country of Munchkinland.

Sadly, there is anything but agreement about where the lands of Oz where (are?) While most researchers and scholars agree with the South Dakota/Emerald City theory (SD/EC), others have placed it in Australia (obviously), Belarus (Minsk/Emerald City), and of course, the continental geography which encompasses the entire US mainland (Oklahoma City/ Emerald City). Interestingly, it is L. Frank Baum himself who made statements indicating such a geography, which is why early believers thought this was the correct geography. But as later scholars have re-thought the issue, they now believe Baum was incorrect. Of course, this just goes to show you that Baum couldn't have written the books himself, because he wouldn't have been so wrong about the geography if he had written it himself, right?

[Daniel Peterson]

Cute, cinepro. Well, sort of.

Your recent silliness will distract a few, perhaps, but it won't obscure what you wrote. And it won't hide the fact that plausibly demonstrating a comprehensive fit between a narrative text and the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica is neither so easy nor so trivial nor so insignificant as you wanted your audience to imagine.

You tried to score a cheap and illegitimate point with a vacuous boast:

I can show you how either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other supposedly fictitious land, can be made to fit the geography and archaeology of Central America.

I've called you on it.

But now you're trying to pretend that you never made your boast. You won't demonstrate your claimed capacity to fit Oz, Middle Earth, or any other fictitious land into the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica. Why not? Because you can't.

Your pretense that you would be easily able to perform such a task for "either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other . . . fictitious land" was entirely empty.

[Gervin]

In other words, M. Gervin's method of determining whether or not a Book of Mormon city does or does not correspond to a city of the Mesoamerican pre-Classic is . . . to concentrate on a different question.

Your mostly right. I don't simply claim that a city is known and then fend off people who want to argue with the logic of not being able to prove that they don't exist. Again (and again and again) I ask about why assume the Book of Mormon has any correlation to mesoamerica pre-classics. Your responses are all in the same vein:

"How do you learn to play baseball, M. Gervin?"

"By first determining whether I want to learn to play baseball, or football, or mumbly peg."

"How does one learn to play the violin, O Master Gervin?"

"One learns to play the violin, O my student, by first considering the question of whether one wants to learn to play the bagpipes, the kettle drum, or the violin."

Good God, what are you Donovan's brother or something? I must've really hit a nerve.

M. Gervin's answer here is designed to enable him to avoid (or at least postpone) responding to the challenge posed to him by Professor Hamblin, which was how he intended to compare A (Book of Mormon city names) to B (pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names) without troubling himself to know anything at all about B. It is an exercise in obfuscation and evasion.

I don't intend to compare A to B because you can't provide any evidence that A and B have any kind of relationship. None. Zero.

[KevinG]

I must've really hit a nerve.

More likely the funny bone.

[Daniel Peterson]

M. Gervin's method of answering Professor Hamblin's question is to attempt to change the subject.

Reporter: "Senator Gervin, in your view, what should be the policy of the United States regarding the conflict between Evadistan and Obfuskistan?"

Senator Blatherington Q. Gervin (whispering to an aide): "Where in blazes are Evadistan and Obfuskistan? Are they near Omaha? Is there a war there? Why wasn't I told about this?"

Aide (whispering to Senator Gervin): "Never heard of 'em."

Senator Blatherington Q. Gervin (turning back to press corps): "I'm glad you asked that question, Ms. Blowdride. But before we can even think about what our foreign policy ought to be regarding this regrettable conflict in such an important region, we need to be sure of our own national strength. That's why I've introduced the Playground Gym Equipment Act of 2013. My proposal will ensure that we have the national strength and stamina to deal with, er, the crisis in, um . . . Absurdistan and Blitheringville. We must think of the children."

In other words, M. Gervin's method of determining whether or not a Book of Mormon city does or does not correspond to a city of the Mesoamerican pre-Classic is . . . to concentrate on a different question.

Your mostly right. I don't simply claim that a city is known and then fend off people who want to argue with the logic of not being able to prove that they don't exist. Again (and again and again) I ask about why assume the Book of Mormon has any correlation to mesoamerica pre-classics.

Have you read John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon? That will suggest quite a few reasons why. (Please answer the question, Senator.)

Your responses are all in the same vein:

"How do you learn to play baseball, M. Gervin?"

"By first determining whether I want to learn to play baseball, or football, or mumbly peg."

"How does one learn to play the violin, O Master Gervin?"

"One learns to play the violin, O my student, by first considering the question of whether one wants to learn to play the bagpipes, the kettle drum, or the violin."

Good God, what are you Donovan's brother or something? I must've really hit a nerve.

Consider them Zen tutorials in elementary logic, poor fellow.

What is the sound of one lip flapping?

M. Gervin's answer here is designed to enable him to avoid (or at least postpone) responding to the challenge posed to him by Professor Hamblin, which was how he intended to compare A (Book of Mormon city names) to B (pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names) without troubling himself to know anything at all about B. It is an exercise in obfuscation and evasion.

I don't intend to compare A to B because you can't provide any evidence that A and B have any kind of relationship. None. Zero.

Which, being interpreted, means, I don't intend to consider whether there are onomastic grounds for arguing that there is or is not a relationship between pre-Classic Mesoamerican cities and Book of Mormon cities because . . . well, because there's no relationship and I don't even know what "onomastic grounds" means and I can't hear you and neener neener neener and I would rather talk about something else anything else and that Hamblin caught me in a blatant and embarrassing logical gaffe and dagnabbit I hate Mormonism and I'm going to pretend to be above such things not deigning to notice them everybody will forget soon oh gosh oh gosh oh gosh isn't it bedtime yet (help!). I'll be back.

[KevinG]

If your classes are half as entertaining as your posts, I do believe I would enjoy them Dr. Krispy 'er Peterson.

[Bill Hamblin]

By first establishing withh some degree of certainty that the geographic and cultural descriptors in the Book of Mormon point to a pre-Classic Mesoamerican location. By examing the archaeological record and looking for clues that allow for a contact with Book of Mormon people, religion, culture, language, art, etc., however limited one thinks that record may be (and while the archaeological picture is incomplete it is certainly not without signficant discoveries of varying scales). By using scientific methods for rc dating strata, artifacts, etc. By engaging the scientific / anthropology communiity in the objective and critical review of hypotheses, field work, conclusions.

You are, of course, confusing shared material culture with city names.

(If you want to engage the shared material culture issue--of course you really don't--then you'd read the material Professor Peterson suggested.)

At any rate, the issue YOU raised was identifying BOM cities. I suggested that could not be done without pre-Classic toponyms for comparison. You then replied that you think we can identify city names by shared material culture. I can assure you that there are many, many regions of the world where material culture have been carefully identified, yet not a single city name is known. You are really hopelessly confused on the subject.

Since you're satisfied that the Book of Mormon cities have been found then either everything I mentioned has been done to your complete satisfaction ... or it isn't pertinent. I won't make any assumptions but if your satisfied that Mormon cities have been found and only have to be identified it's clear you are operating on your no. 3.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think another confusion you harbor is between FINDING a site and IDENTIFYING a site. It is easy to find an archaeological site. It is much more difficult to identify the name of that site.

Now pay close attention, please. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN POSSIBLY DETERMINE IF A BOOK OF MORMON CITY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IS IF WE HAVE ANCIENT PRE-CLASSIC CITY NAMES TO COMPARE WITH THE CITY NAMES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

So, I'll ask you one more time, and one time only--and then I'm done with this nonsense. Can you give me the pronunciations of ten Pre-classic Mesoamerican city names which we can use for comparison with BOM city names? If not, would you agreee that the problem of identifying BOM city names is fundamentally untestable because we have insufficient data?

[Addictio]

Above on this thread, Hamblin said (bold emphasis added):

Gervin,

I'll try one last time, and then I will surrender to the inevitable darkness.

How do you propose to determine whether or not a BOM city corresponds or does not correspond to an ancient pre-Classic Mesoamerican city.

In my world, it requires:

1- We have a BOM city name

2- We have a pre-Classic Mesoamerican city name

3- We compare and contrast the two to see if there is or is not a correlation

Without Pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names, there is absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities with BOM cities.

How does it work in your world?

As Hamblin is no doubt aware, Sorenson has been "trying to correlate Pre-Classic sites with BoM cities" for some time now. (That's what archaeologists study, btw: ancient sites. So that is all they could try to "correlate" with a BoM city.) He has, for example, tentatively identified the Santa Rosa site with Zarahemla. Once such an identification has been made or proffered, the stage is set for further discussion and debate about whether the identification is credible or reasonable in light of various features of the site and the BoM text. Hence Deanne Matheny's response re the Santa Rosa site and Zarahemla, and Sorenson's subsequent rejoinder. That debate is shaped in part by the kinds of archaeological inquiries that Gervin mentioned; it has nothing to do with anyone's belief or expectation that the ancient Pre-Classic name of the city located at the Santa Rosa site has been or ever will be discovered.

As both Hamblin and DCP should know, no one, not Sorenson and Clark on the one hand, or non-LDS archaeologists like Coe and Diehl on the other, believes or expects that in order to connect a Pre-Classic archeological site with a particular BoM city (or more to the point, with any BoM city, or with BoM peoples) one would have to know the name by which the Pre-Classic city (or again, any Pre-Classic city) was known by its contemporaneous inhabitants or neighbors.

So Hamblin's declaration that there is "absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities" with BoM cities because we don't know the ancient names of those Pre-Classic cities is both mistaken and misleading. When experts like Diehl assert that there is not a shred of archaeological evidence for the existence of any non-indigenous, extra-hemispheric influence upon the Olmec (much less any such evidence for the origin of the Olmec), it is not because the ancient names of Olmec cities are unknown. Detecting such influence (or evaluating claims of such influence) plainly does not depend upon knowing the ancient names of Olmec cities or settlements. Similarly, when Clark argues that certain Olmec urban sites constitute archaeological evidence for the existence of Jaredite cities, he does not claim (or expect ever to be able to demonstrate) that the ancient name of any Olmec city has been determined, much less that it "matches" or "corresponds to" a particular city name, or any city name at all, in the Book of Ether.

In sum, the fact that the ancient names of Olmec and other Pre-Classic Mesoamerican cities are not known, and probably never will be, does not prevent LDS archaeologists (e.g., Sorenson and Clark) from "correlating" (or "trying to correlate") Mesoamerican urban sites with one or more BoM cities and/or with BoM peoples. More importantly, experts who disagree about the existence of archaeological evidence for BoM peoples do not contend (or believe) that discovering viable, persuasive archaeological evidence of BoM peoples requires that the ancient names of Mesoamerican cities be known. Consequently, Hamblin's pronouncement that "Without Pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names, there is absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities with BOM cities" is simply mistaken, as arguments advanced by Sorenson and Clark indicate. Moreover, the merits of either side of the debates and disagreements among experts over the existence of archaeological evidence for BoM peoples do not turn or rely upon the fact that the ancient names of Mesoamerican cities are unknown.

[Bill Hamblin]

More importantly, experts who disagree about the existence of archaeological evidence for BoM peoples do not contend (or believe) that discovering viable, persuasive archaeological evidence of BoM peoples requires that the ancient names of Mesoamerican cities be known. Consequently, Hamblin's pronouncement that "Without Pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names, there is absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities with BOM cities" is simply mistaken, as arguments advanced by Sorenson and Clark indicate.

Funny how the antis keep trying to change the subject.

Gervin (or someone) made a list of city names from the BOM and asked which ones have been found?

I replied that without knowledge of Pre-classic city names there is no way to identify a particular site with a specific BOM city.

Now Addictio tells us:

1- there are other ways to examine other features of BOM civilization through archaeology

2- professors can make speculative attempts at correlation between Mesoamerican sites and BOM cities without city names

Both are quite true. On the other hand, Sorenson's identification of Santa Rosa with Zarahemla is speculative, as he would readily admit. It is a working hypothesis. How could it be confirmed with certainty? The only way I know is by discovery of an inscription.

Now the fact that we can make various other types of evaluations about BOM archaeology without knowing Pre-Classic city names is quite true. But that does not change the fact that we cannot correlate BOM cities with Mesoamerican cities in the absence of Pre-classic city names.

[The Dude]

Both are quite true. On the other hand, Sorenson's identification of Santa Rosa with Zarahemla is speculative, as he would readily admit. It is a working hypothesis. How could it be confirmed with certainty? The only way I know is by discovery of an inscription.

Now the fact that we can make various other types of evaluations about BOM archaeology without knowing Pre-Classic city names is quite true. But that does not change the fact that we cannot correlate BOM cities with Mesoamerican cities in the absence of Pre-classic city names.

Was Troy only identified "with certainty" by an inscription?

If not, is it still only "speculative"?

[Cold Steel]

Reality check. There is no correlation between the pronunciation of Mesoamerican cities, ca pre-400CE and any alleged cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Again, how do you know that cities which have been found that date back to Book of Mormon times are not, in fact, Book of Mormon cities? What are their names? How many have been found? And what of the cities that remain buried under mounds of dirt and grass throughout the region?

When I took the long bus route from Cancun to Chich

[Bill Hamblin]

Was Troy only identified "with certainty" by an inscription?

If not, is it still only "speculative"?

Indeed.

We have several inscriptions from Roman times identifying a nearby site as "New Troy" founded by Augustus I believe, near the site of what they then believed was Homer's Troy (identified by hero shrines which existed at least from the time of Alexander). This is what led Schleimann to the Hisarlik site (modern Turkish name) in the first place. We also have 13th century BC Hittite inscriptions that mention "Wilusa" the Hittite version of the Greek "(W)ilon" which is what Homer generally calls it (Homeric Greek had a "digamma" prefix W which disappeared in later Greek).

We also have Roman geographers who define the location of Troy as being a certain distance from other known cities.

We do not, however, have inscriptions from Hisarlik itself, hence the identification of that site as Homer's Troy, and which specific level should be associated with Troy is uncertain, though highly probable.

How does this compare with know pre-Classic Mesoamerican toponymic data for ANY site in Mesoamerica?

I should also add that the Turkish name for the site, Hisarlik, is obviously completely unrelated to the Hittite Wilusa, Greek (W)Ilion, or Roman Troy. Which nicely illustrates the facts that toponyms regularly change in periods of cultural discontinuity.