Book Of Mormon Evidence

Not quite me · January 19, 2007

I'll see your degree in Latin American history and enter an advanced degree in Mesoamerican ethnohistory (MA only, however, darn it all).

Touche.

I mentioned that because some people seem to think that we "critics" don't know what we're talking about. It's OK to disagree. I know you have your reasons for concluding what you have, and I have mine.

Brant Gardner · January 19, 2007

I hesitate to get involved in this thread because these discussions tend to take up a lot of time and end up frustrating both sides. However, I canâ??t resist adding two of my cents.

Hello again. I noticed your were on the boards a couple time, but you have restrained yourself well <grin>.

It seems to me that the most significant problem facing BoM/Mesoamerican historicity has to do with the polities described in the text.

Yes. We have covered this before. I suspect we will continue to read the evidence differently.

This is beyond translation errors; the polities are embedded within the entire text.

On this point we agree.

Based on Sorensonâ??s and actual Mesoamerican maps, the approximate distance between these two centers would be 110 miles. While, as Brant indicated, Mesoamerican scholars have differing opinions regarding the exact political structure of ancient Mesoamerica, not even the most generous theory would allow for such a scenario.

This is a new wrinkle on your older arguments. Glad to see you are still working it over. (An aside, I took a quick look at your link. I'm very happy to see that you have discarded your idea that the type of political relationship the Book of Mormon describes didn't happen that earlier. The distance argument is more sophisticated, but it still has problems - just not the kind where you were missing the time depth of the political complexity) However, you are granting a much greater control over Ammonihah than the text suggests. There is certainly some relationship, but not one that Ammonihah feels obliged to follow if they don't want to. They are pretty free to ignore Zarahemla, which they do pretty well when they reject Alma, who was recently the sitting chief judge.

As for the distance involved, I assume you have a way to explain why your theory is different for Zarahemla and Ammonihah that it was for early Teotihuacan and the Maya region (there is strong Teotihuacano influence in Kaminaljuyu, for example, prior to the entrada in Tikal.

The scholars Iâ??ve read seem to agree that, generally, a ceremonial center could exert control over smaller locations within a dayâ??s walking distance.

And be mortal enemies with one that close, such as Tikal and Calakmul. However, I know that you have read Rice's book. Note that she lists several models on which there is no complete agreement. One of the has a rather widespread sphere of influence, in contradiction to your statement (see p. 50).

I wrote a lengthier essay on this topic, and a few other BoM issues, for zarahemlacitylimits, for those interested in more details and references.

I'll take a look. At the moment, we seem to disagree on both the reading of the Book of Mormon and what the scholars and evidence are saying, so I don't think we are going to get any closer on this.

gitxsanartist · January 19, 2007

This book sounds interesting, I might give it a read.

I don't mind apologetic books on the BofM as long as they are written intelligently and they don't go to absurd lengths to rationalize geography, culture etc... to make them fit the model they want them to fit.

In other words if the data fits then I want to see the analysis and the points where they fit. I don't want to see serious stretches that attempt to make the data fit. When I read that sort of material lately it just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.

So what is your honest recommendation on this book, NQM? Do you feel it stretches too far or is within the realm of good science and scholarship?

On a complete different train of thought, I've seen a link that tries to compare the place names of the BofM to the names surrounding the New York area. Have you seen this before and what are your thoughts?

This model places all of the Book of Mormon action in Western New York with the Great Lakes serving as the seas. One of the models for this geography was proposed by Vernal Holley (Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look. 1983) not to show that they Book of Mormon took place there, but to show that Joseph Smith must have stolen the names and geography from that area when he invented the Book of Mormon.

Not quite me · January 19, 2007

This book sounds interesting, I might give it a read.
I don't mind apologetic books on the BofM as long as they are written intelligently and they don't go to absurd lengths to rationalize geography, culture etc... to make them fit the model they want them to fit.
In other words if the data fits then I want to see the analysis and the points where they fit. I don't want to see serious stretches that attempt to make the data fit. When I read that sort of material lately it just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.
So what is your honest recommendation on this book, NQM? Do you feel it stretches too far or is within the realm of good science and scholarship?

I'm not sure which book you're talking about, but Clark's article (essentially a reprint of a talk he gave at BYU) can be found at the FARMS website.

My honest opinion is that Clark starts from a faulty premise and then finds parallels to support that premise.

On a complete different train of thought, I've seen a link that tries to compare the place names of the BofM to the names surrounding the New York area. Have you seen this before and what are your thoughts?
This model places all of the Book of Mormon action in Western New York with the Great Lakes serving as the seas. One of the models for this geography was proposed by Vernal Holley (Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look. 1983) not to show that they Book of Mormon took place there, but to show that Joseph Smith must have stolen the names and geography from that area when he invented the Book of Mormon.

It's funny because a couple of years ago on the FAIR board I attacked Holley's book, reasoning that many of the place names hadn't been incorporated in Joseph's day. I'm not convinced I made a good case, but Holley's model pretty much does what Her Amun is doing in his thread about Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon: he finds parallels and insists they are significant. Whether they are or not is arguable, obviously.

So, I'd take Holley with a grain of salt, though some of the place names are interesting (Kishkimenetas comes to mind).

beastie · January 19, 2007

This is a new wrinkle on your older arguments. Glad to see you are still working it over. (An aside, I took a quick look at your link. I'm very happy to see that you have discarded your idea that the type of political relationship the Book of Mormon describes didn't happen that earlier. The distance argument is more sophisticated, but it still has problems - just not the kind where you were missing the time depth of the political complexity)

Iâ??m not sure what argument youâ??re referring to. My past primary arguments regarding polities were that the types of war described in the BoM, particularly in Helaman, are anachronistic, and that any polity that could offer even the slightest hope of qualifying for a BoM setting would have to be a precociously developed polity, due to the time frame. This presents complications due to the fact that it was precisely the precocious polities that influenced the entire trajectory of the development of certain crucial elements of Mesoamerican tradition, such as the Holy Lord (on the zarahemla site I have another essay about that problem). To which are you referring? Or are you talking about something else? I still believe those ideas are very problematic, and address them on the zarahemla site. However, I have grown to view this issue â?? the fact that the polity described in the BoM simply did not exist at that time period, anywhere â?? as the larger, most significant issue.

However, you are granting a much greater control over Ammonihah than the text suggests. There is certainly some relationship, but not one that Ammonihah feels obliged to follow if they don't want to. They are pretty free to ignore Zarahemla, which they do pretty well when they reject Alma, who was recently the sitting chief judge.

They are free to ignore Alma only because he is no longer chief judge.

12 And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us.

If Alma had not given up his political position, then he would still have been the â??chief judgeâ? over Ammonihah. You concede this point on your website:

The historical lesson deals with the nature of the political and religious alliances of Zarahemla. Clearly Ammonihah recognizes the authority of Zarahemla over it. They reject Alma because he has no political authority over them. While they are aware of his religious authority, they feel no need to heed that authority as the do not recognize it. The separation of Nephite religion from the political structure is complete, and sufficiently separate that Ammonihah can proclaim political dependence while rejecting the religious dependence.

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD.../Alma/Alma8.htm

As for the distance involved, I assume you have a way to explain why your theory is different for Zarahemla and Ammonihah that it was for early Teotihuacan and the Maya region (there is strong Teotihuacano influence in Kaminaljuyu, for example, prior to the entrada in Tikal.

As there was a Maya influence in Teotihuacan. However, it is important to be clear on this point: there exists a great deal of disagreement over the nature of Teotihacanâ??s influence. Many scholars believe that influence was more likely the result of trade, and was mutual. The more extensive occupation happened much later in history:

One of the most powerful Preclassic cities, Kaminaljuyu occupied the highland valley now occupied by Guatemala City. Situated only 20 kilometers (12 miles) from one of the most important obsidian sources in the Maya region, Kaminaljuyu grew from a small Middle Preclassic Period settlement into the dominant city in the southern region during the Late Preclassic. Its construction included extensive canals and earthen pyramids; its rulers were buried in some of the wealthiest tombs then known; and its art included many stelae in the Izapan style. At the beginning of the Early Classic Period, the city contracted and was depopulated until the central Mexican city of Teotihuacan probably conquered it in the fourth century C.E. and used it as a base for its trade operations in the region. The city was occupied into the Postclassic Period, but after the Early Classic period, it never rose again to be a major power. It was abandoned by the time of the Spanish Conquest. (p 109)
From Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World by Lynn Foster

There still exist doubts about whether or not Teotihuacan was actually â??controllingâ? even Tikal. From the book you mentioned earlier:

It has long been known that central Mexico- most probably the enormous site of Teotihuacan â?? played an important but as yet undefined role in the Maya area during the Early Classic period. Early attention focused on what was presumed to be a key interaction with Kaminaljuyu in the Maya highlands, but more recent interest has been stimulated by epigraphic evidence of an â??arrival eventâ? of Teotihuacanos at Tikal on January 14, 378. On that day, acccording to David Stuartâ??s reconstruction, a group of central Mexicans, including Siyaj Kâ??akâ?? or Kâ??ak Sij (Fire Born, formerly known by the nickname â??Smoking Frogâ?), Yax Nun Ayuin I (First ? crocodile, formerly Curl Snout), and Spearthrower Owl arrived at Tikal. On this same day the Tikal ruler Cahk Tok Ichâ??ak I â??entered the waterâ?, which is presumed to mean that he died. Stuart sees Siyaj Kâ??akâ?? as a military leader sent by Spearthrower Owl to overthrow Tikalâ??s dynasty, consolidate power, and serve as a regent for a new ruler, Spearthrower Owlâ??s young son, Yax Nun Ayin I. Yax Nun Ayin I was installed on a day 5 Kabâ??an 10 Yaxkâ??in (September 11, 379), and on his accession monument, Stela 4, he wears a necklace of large shells and his face peers out from the maw of a huge feathered jaguar (?) head headdress. Above him a long-nosed deity head gazes downwardâ?¦.
What has gone relatively unnoticed in this discussion of the 378 event is the substantial presence of central Mexicans in Tikal for more than a century before this â??arrivalâ? and the relative lack of evidence for dynastic disruption in the following century. With respect to the former, a key variable in identifying central Mexican contact or influence outside the Mexican plateau is the presence of talud-tablero architectural facades. This term refers to the two-part construction of the tiers of a structural platform, in which a sloping batter (talud) is topped by a rectangular, bordered panel (tablero). At Tikal, talud-tablero architecture is first evidence in Mundo Perdido around AD 250-300, about a century before the 378 â??arrivalâ? of central Mexicans in Tikal. Interestingly, it makes its earliest appearance in connection with modifications to the radial temple in the E-group and shows up slightly later (AD 350-378) on three platforms in residential Group 6C-XVI, a short distance to the south of Mundo Perdido.
Despite the evident importance of these central Mexican dignitaries in the lowlands, continuities with prearrival canons of dynastic legitimation were maintained. While subsequent Tikal rulers traced descent from Spearthrower Owl in the male line, they married Tikal women of presumably comparable high-status royal lines, perhaps from the Jaguar Paw dynastyâ?¦
The imagery on stelae erected by Tikalâ??s post-entrada rulers is purely Mayan in concept, style and executionâ?¦.
Rather than being a formal military takeover of Tikal, this Teotihuacan arrival was clearly only one event in several centuries of interactions between central Mexico and the lowland Maya. (page 102)
From Riceâ??s Maya Political Science

Demarest outlines the problem (in terms of the BoM context) clearly, in Ancient Maya, page 238:

We should note that the Classic Maya theater-states were never able to form a panregional centralized state, as arose in other world regions. For example, the Mesopotamia, the Early Dynastic period of unstable warring city-states led to the later, more unified hegemonies of macro-states of Agade, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. In central Mexico, Teotihuacan came to dominate the smaller centers of the region and to form a more centralized and unitary urban state. In Egypt, the beginning of the third millennium BC witnessed the unification of the variable regional â??nomeâ? states of Egypt into a single pharaonic kingdom. Similar processes of unification of unstable, less centralized, archaic polities into larger, more unitary states have been observed throughout the ancient world.
The Maya lowlands, however, continued throughout the Classic period to be a landscape of fluctuating, expanding and contracting theater-states, galactic polities, and unstable alliances. Like the Southeast Asian Negara theater-state kingdoms, the Maya never achieved political unification. Instead, in the ninth and tenth centuries, many of the Classic Maya kingdoms in the southern lowlands declined or collapsed. Others were transformed into a new kind of state system, one without the central organizing principle of the Kâ??uhul Ajaw â??holy lordsâ?. As we shall see in the next chapter, the reasons for this failure to unify and integrate, and the causes of the decline of the Classic political system, are as complex and fascinating as Maya civilization itself.

In addition, another crucial difference between Teotihuacan and the Maya exists: Teotihuacan had a standing army and a different type of warfare. The control they exerted was due to that fact, as it would be later with the Aztecs.

Payson Sheets explains in his essay â??Warfare in Ancient Mesoamerica: A Summary Viewâ?, contained in the book Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare:

Warfare should not be seen as a monolithic repetitive entity among Mesoamerican societies. Rather, warfare varied considerably, depending on factors such as the degree of political centralization, presence or absence of competitive nearby polities, demographic and ecologic processes, ritualization of warfare, resource unpredictability, and economic and technological changes. Hassig deals with some of these factors, and I anticipate that future warfare research will both broaden and deepen them. Are there correlations between the degree of political centralizaton and the nature of warfare? In a general sense, there is a relationship, as both of the most highly urbanized and centralized civilizations, Teotihuacan and the Aztecs, waged war with standing armies against external polities. Hassig characterizes Teotihuacan and the Aztecs as meritocratic states with some social mobility for individuals based on their military successes. Both states were relatively innovative in military techniques and technology, and both developed large standing armies that expanded over much of Mesoamerica, but neither society lasted for a long time. In contrast, the Maya waged aristocratic wars, were more conservative, avoided having large standing armies of commoners, and as a result were less expansionistic and in the long run more stable. I believe that we can include the Olmec with the Maya in these characteristics. Additionally, I believe that the Zapotecs more closely resemble the Maya than the Basin of Mexico states. (page 295)

Brant:

And be mortal enemies with one that close, such as Tikal and Calakmul. However, I know that you have read Rice's book. Note that she lists several models on which there is no complete agreement. One of the has a rather widespread sphere of influence, in contradiction to your statement (see p. 50).

Yes, I specifically stated that there is no uniform agreement on the exact nature of Maya politics with this statement from my earlier post:

While, as Brant indicated, Mesoamerican scholars have differing opinions regarding the exact political structure of ancient Mesoamerica, not even the most generous theory would allow for such a scenario.

I quoted quite a bit from Rice in my zarahemalcitylimits essay, and will share more of information here from Lynn Foster, who directly addresses this issue. Note that even under the most generous theory the type of polities (both Nephite and the often more powerful Lamanites) did not exist. That type of polity would not exist until the time of the Aztecs. Not even Teotihuacan achieved the control, in terms of simple distance, that the Nephites did.

First, Demarestâ??s summary from Ancient Maya:

The size and extent of polities
There have been many methods applied by scholars to estimate the territorial size and populations of Maya states. For many decades we have relied upon indirect measures based on archaeological data about the distance between sites, the volume of construction in sites, or the number of monuments, plazas, or structures. More recently we have been able to shift to the historical record of the stone monuments and their inscriptions identifying the ruling of dynasties of the Kâ??uhul Ajaw and their political alliances, rituals, and wars. Critical to such interpretations are the emblem-glyphs and titles described earlier. A few texts even mention tribute payments by vassal polities. With such detailed data, it is possible to be more specific about which centers were dominant powers in particular periods and to plot their political relationships. This epigraphic record portrays a very complex inter-elite political landscape throughout the Classic period.
As a minimal building block of Maya polities, the individual small polity, defined by a dynastic â??holy lordâ? title or emblem-glyph, has been estimated by some scholars as being one or two daysâ?? walking distances in diameter. Probably dynastic seats or â??capitalsâ? of such minimal polities were often about ten to thirty kilometers apart. We might speculate that this size for the realm of the average holy lord befits a â??theater-stateâ? in which the Kâ??uhul Ajaawâ??s personal presence and celebration of rites were central to the maintenance of his authority. For a time, epigraphers and archaeologists believed that the lowland Maya world in the Classic period consisted of only such small city-states interacting in a â??peer polityâ? system. Now, with more detailed information, we can study the tremendous variability in Maya polities and the historical development of structurally distinct regional states and pan-lowland, but short-lived, alliances.
In the Late Classic, polities had populations varying from several thousand at most major cities to several hundred thousand around some great regional capitals such as Calakmul, Tikal, and Caracol. All such demographic estimates for sites, polities, or regions are highly speculative calculations based on house mound counts, ceramic dating of mounds, ethnographic models for the number of persons per structure, and, usually, a calculation factor for â??invisibleâ? houses that lacked clearly visible substructure mounds or platforms. Combined with the epigraphic evidence on specific political formations, the speculative demography and settlement evidence allow broad, very tentative characterizations of Classic Maya political history. (page 214)

The following information from Fosterâ??s Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World helps to delineate the possibilities.

Political Boundaries: The Size of Maya States
Site rankings and regional mappings cannot by themselves define the boundaries of the Maya states. More information is needed to create such territorial boundaries and to determine the size and number of Maya political states. With no hieroglyphic inscriptions available for most regions and most periods of Maya civilization, archaeologists have utilized various models about central places to delineate political territories. Assuming that the first-rank cities, such as Tikal, Copan, and Coba, were at the center of their domains, the boundaries were projected by formulas based on information about the maximum distance for effective communication, transportation, and control.
Regional States
The world systems theory, for example, argues that a pedestrian society like that of the Maya could cover only 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) in one day and that would be the farthest distance feasible for a secondary center. Such information has recently been used to delineate the Early Postclassic states of Chichen Itza, and it has successfully explained the carefully spaced towns between that capital city and its port at Isla Cerritos. It could also be used to explain El Miradorâ??s central location amid the series of paved roads to other Late Preclassic Period cities; the paved roads must have expedited travel between the capital and its second-tier cities.
City-States
For the Classic Period, mathematical models have provoked far more controversy, primarily because there has been less agreement over which cities should be considered capitals. Where emblem glyph information has been available, the advocates of city-states have argued that an emblem glyph indicates an independent polity, regardless of size, unless the hieroglyphic evidence indicates otherwise. For example, the small city of Pomona, usually considered a dependency of Palenque, had an emblem glyph, and in the eighth century it was independent of Palenque. The size difference between Pomona and Palenque was no more relevant to their political status in the eighth century, it is argued, than that of Holland and the United States in the 20th century: All are autonomous. The regional states position has tended to elevate only the physically largest of cities with emblem glyphs to the status of a capital and has relied heavily on archaeological evidence as opposed to epigraphic decipherments. (page 130)

So while it may not be possible to categorically assert the relationships between all ancient Mesoamerican polities, scholars generally accept that secondary sites must be within one dayâ??s walking distance of the capital center, in order for the capital center to exert any form of control over that site.

But there is some dispute over how large these polities became, which again is reflected in Fosterâ??s summary:

Integrated Vs Fragmented States
Mathematical models and site rankings have not resolved basic issues about the size of Maya political states, and both the regional and city-state theories require some modification to fit more closely with the known archaeological facts. In the case of Chichen Itza and perhaps even El Mirador, the regional state theory seems to be supported by archaeological evidence. But some archaeologists believe that for most periods of Maya civilization, the Maya political states was inherently unstable and incapable of forming the large unitary sates envisioned under the regional state position. Such weak states are called peer polities, or segmentary states, and many argue that the city-state model better captures the fragmentation that results from such instability.
Peer Polities
Regardless of their size, segmentary states have the same function. Tikal provided no more benefits to its populace, under this theory, than Nakum did, once it proclaimed its independence from Tikal. If a member of a dynasty were unhappy or if a competing noble lineage became dissatisfied, a splinter state could be formed with no lossâ?¦
Under the peer polity theory, Maya states were incapable of sustaining expansive regional states because the Maya ruler inspired loyalty to local dynasties, not large regional territories. Many small, weak states resulted, and their power fluctuated according to whether they had strong, militaristic rulers. According to this view, the Maya political system could not sustain political stability, and the Maya ruler had interest only in protecting his state, not in territorial expansion.
Although there is now considerable evidence that some Maya states were interested in territorial expansion, the peer polity theory has many followers. In fact, supporters of this theory argue that the amount of warfare among the many cities that were allegedly unified into regional states proves they were, in fact, fragmented and not integrated. Tikal was repeatedly attacked and defeated by the very cities it supposedly ruled as a regional state, Caracol being its most notable enemy. During the Late Classic Period, at least, such political shifts within states, whether city-states or regional states, were not unusual. (page 132)
Superstates
By the 1990s, the increasingly refined readings of the hieroglyphic texts enabled Mayanists to understand far more about political relationships than permitted by the emblem glyphs alone. The new information suggests that there may have been immense political territories, as envisioned by proponents of the regional state theory. On the other hand, the texts suggest that such political territories, far from being integrated states, constituted only a confederacy of autonomous city-states. Any city-stateâ??s autonomy, however, lasted only as long as the city-state cooperated with the confederacy; autonomy came with a price tag: tribute payments.
The decipherments demonstrate that dynastic rulers of cities with emblem glyphs were sometimes subservient to another. Some were members of the dynastic nobility that had been appointed to govern dependencies. Some rulers were installed under the auspices of a ruler not through dynastic ties but through conquest or marriage alliances. Yet these rulers, apparently subservient to a greater state, continued to fight wars, receive their own tribute to build immense palatial complexes, and take on all the appearances of autonomous city-states. These texts suggest that city-states combined into regional confederations, but the local rulers were permitted to act as if their authority had not been compromised.
The superstate theory is still being refined, but it suggests that the Maya city-states sometimes participated in large territorial confederacies controlled by one of the great military powers Tikal or Calakmul. Tikal and Calakmul were surrounded by extensive territories â?? at least 120 square kilometers (27 square miles) for Calakmul â?? in which no other city employed an emblem glyph. Their power may have originated from the vast territorial resources under their direct control, which included many bureaucratic tiers of other cities and towns. As such, they were powerful, independent city-states. The dynasties of these two great military states intermarried with dynasties at other states, conquered yet others and controlled the installation of their rulers, and forged a network of trade and tribute. In the process, these two states created large confederacies, or superstates.
The power of these states was such that smaller ones gained considerable prestige through the association. Also, the inscriptions suggest that the states participating in these confederations did not war with one another. Under this view, there were two different kinds of states in the Late Classic Period: somewhat autonomous city-states and larger superstates that included these semi-independent city-states. This might be roughly comparable to the current situation in Europe where many independent nations have joined the European Union, mostly for economic reasons, but also for the peace that it insures. In the case of the European Union, however, membership in the confederacy is completely voluntary. For the Maya superstates, military coercion was probably used as often as political persuasion. (page 133)

While the issue is far from settled among Mesoamerican scholars, for the sake of argument I shall assume the most generous territorial plan, that of the super-state, to evaluate the polities described in the Book of Mormon. The association described between Zarahemla and Ammonihah still falls far outside the most generous vision of Mesoamerican political power. Note, for example, the distances given for one of the most powerful and expansive Classic period polities, Calakmul â?? 27 square miles. Yet, as I stated earlier, as the crow flies, the simple distance from Zarahemla and Ammonihah is over 100 miles. The second fatal flaw is in regards to the fact that Ammonihah recognized the legal authority of the chief judge of Zarahemla. Even under the super-states theory, each city-state retained its own jurisdictional authority. There is simply no political system coherent with ancient Mesoamerica that could satisfactorily include the relationship between Zarahemla and Ammonihah, particularly when they were so far apart.

I'll take a look. At the moment, we seem to disagree on both the reading of the Book of Mormon and what the scholars and evidence are saying, so I don't think we are going to get any closer on this.

Yes, thatâ??s part of the reason I havenâ??t engaged more in the BoM threads when they pop up. I still find it the most interesting part of Mormonism by far, but, as you mentioned yourself earlier, it is difficult to discuss adequately in a message board format. I also tend to get frustrated by seeing old information recycled by posters, even when the information has been thoroughly debunked (and Iâ??m talking about the type of specious information that you would definitely view as debunked, not things open to interpretation).

BTW, my sons bought me War and Society in Ancient Mesaomerica by Ross Hassig for Christmas. Iâ??m getting ready to start it now. Iâ??ve wanted it for a long time and hope it will shed more light on that particular issue.

Brant Gardner · January 19, 2007

However, I have grown to view this issue â?? the fact that the polity described in the BoM simply did not exist at that time period, anywhere â?? as the larger, most significant issue.

Just remember that I don't see the same polity you do. I would agree that what you don't think was there - wasn't there. We are defining the Nephite polity very differently.

They are free to ignore Alma only because he is no longer chief judge.

You are hanging a very heavy weight on a very thin thread. Part of the problem in Nephite history is understanding precisely how the division between the political and religious would have worked, precisely because it is unusual. That there was a separation is clear. However, it is less clear what the nature of the political allegiance was simply because the Ammonihahites don't recognize Nephite religion at all. The very fact that there is a major division between the religious systems of the two cities tells us that there isn't the kind of tight control that you have been assuming. It simply can't exist because religion inforned politics and social structure.

The current work on larger-than-city polity arrangements have to do with Emblem glyphs and the textual interrelationships of sites. Those are necessarily later and there is no way of knowing how well that model describes what happens in Zarahemla, which doesn't seem to exchange people with other cities. Even in your example of "giving" a land, it is an unoccupied territory.

Finally, I don't see the distances you are talking about as prohibitive at all for an association that voluntarily hangs together when it cares to and stays separate at other times. The fissipariousness of Nephite cities strongly suggests that there wasn't much control. Alma wanted to "recover" Ammonihah, but didn't even think of using a military solution. Similarly, he wanted to salvage the Zoramites, but similarly doesn't seem to have access to anything but persuasion. The later Teotihucanos and Mexica used military means quite heavily. It is a different model.

In addition, another crucial difference between Teotihuacan and the Maya exists: Teotihuacan had a standing army and a different type of warfare. The control they exerted was due to that fact, as it would be later with the Aztecs.

I doubt it was a standing army. The Mexica didn't have a standing army. They used military might differently and that is part of my point. If you are going to have control over any kind of territory, it requires a means of enforcing it. Zarahemla didn't have it. Therefore, it couldn't have the kind of government that you are suggesting it didn't have. We agree. We just don't agree on what the text requires. I see the political alliance as very loose, as demonstrated by the actions of cities (several of which leave the Zarahemla political orbit). You are suggesting a firm control based on the way you are reading a single verse. I think the evidence is against your reading.

Note that even under the most generous theory the type of polities (both Nephite and the often more powerful Lamanites) did not exist.

Too general a statement. I read the same data as you do, but I see the Nephite and Lamanite polities as very reflective of what was happening at that time.

That type of polity would not exist until the time of the Aztecs. Not even Teotihuacan achieved the control, in terms of simple distance, that the Nephites did.

I think you are off on you ideas about Teotihuacan's geographic spread. Nevertheless, you are also incorrect in assuming that the Nephites had the territorial control that the Mexica did (and Teotihuacanos might have). The evidence of the text tells us differently.

So while it may not be possible to categorically assert the relationships between all ancient Mesoamerican polities, scholars generally accept that secondary sites must be within one dayâ??s walking distance of the capital center, in order for the capital center to exert any form of control over that site.

I think that there are examples of longer distances and control, but this still misses my point. Zarahemla exerted very little control. It appears to represent a hegemony of convenience, where there is a voluntary relationship, but there is rare evidence of any kind of control. Alma may have given up the chief judge seat, but he was still an important man in Zarahemla proper. If he was dishonored, it would not be surprising to expect a military retaliation if there really were some kind of political control. It simply isn't there. Rather than attempt to control cities by force, Alma preaches. That does not fit your model.

USU78 · January 20, 2007

When I lived in Ogden and was wont to attend LDS Institute classes up at Weber State, I recall one day overhearing a conversation between one of the instructors and two of his students.
"What does in mean to "set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted
with all good books?" one student asked.
"It means that God's house is a house of order, and that we edify the members by providing them with goodly books," replied the teacher.
"Where do we find them?" asked the second student.
"Why, at the Church Distribution Center .... and Deseret Books is also another good place," the teacher answered.
"And the DI?" chimed in the other kid.
"Well, if you make sure you clean off all the baby-food stains and such, first of all," stated the teacher, with a sober look of deep reflection.
So now we know WHERE those GOOD BOOKS are -- and how to make them presentable in church. Why do I feel like there is something missing from this picture?

What's missing is said CES Rameumptomite idiot's assertion that the sororities and fraternities at Weber State are a 1960s version of the Secret Combinations of the Jaredites.

USU "More mediocre than they all" 78

beastie · January 20, 2007

I think that there are examples of longer distances and control, but this still misses my point. Zarahemla exerted very little control. It appears to represent a hegemony of convenience, where there is a voluntary relationship, but there is rare evidence of any kind of control. Alma may have given up the chief judge seat, but he was still an important man in Zarahemla proper. If he was dishonored, it would not be surprising to expect a military retaliation if there really were some kind of political control. It simply isn't there. Rather than attempt to control cities by force, Alma preaches. That does not fit your model.

Your quote from your website:

The separation of Nephite religion from the political structure is complete, and sufficiently separate that Ammonihah can proclaim political dependence while rejecting the religious dependence.

Almaâ??s mission was not one of political reclamation. It was religious reclamation. The Nephites werenâ??t going to force others to accept religion. Military retaliation under the Nephite vision of freedom of religion is inconsistent.

So how is it that the Nephites were able to give Jershon to an alien group of people?

charity · January 20, 2007

The Jersonites were mostly members of the Church and readily welcomed the humble newcomers so it was no big deal to anybody?

beastie · January 20, 2007

The Jersonites were mostly members of the Church and readily welcomed the humble newcomers so it was no big deal to anybody?

I would guess they must have comprised the entire location.

So how many cities WERE there in ancient Mesoamerica that were comprised of so many members of the church that they could be called "Nephite"? And just how far spread apart were they?

cdowis · January 20, 2007

I hesitate to get involved in this thread because these discussions tend to take up a lot of time and end up frustrating both sides. However, I canâ??t resist adding two of my cents.
OK
It seems to me that the most significant problem facing BoM/Mesoamerican historicity has to do with the polities described in the text. This is beyond translation errors; the polities are embedded within the entire text. Take, for example, something Iâ??ve discussed with Brant before â?? the fact that Zarahemla politically controlled Ammonihah. Alma, chapter 8 makes this plain:
Zarahemla did not religiously control Ammonihah, hence they were not compelled to listen to Alma once he abdicated the position which had formerly given him politically power over Ammonihah.
Based on Sorensonâ??s and actual Mesoamerican maps, the approximate distance between these two centers would be 110 miles. While, as Brant indicated, Mesoamerican scholars have differing opinions regarding the exact political structure of ancient Mesoamerica, not even the most generous theory would allow for such a scenario. The scholars Iâ??ve read seem to agree that, generally, a ceremonial center could exert control over smaller locations within a dayâ??s walking distance.
We have had this discussion previously. There are nada, zippo, zilch records from this time period, so any "generous" conclusions from so called experts is based on very sketchy evidence. Political and religious power structure is best found in written records, not artifacts.
This is especially true when you are talking about a very narrow, specific period of time, say 50 to 100 years. Most experts are talking about trends over several centuries, not very grainular when looking at this narrow window of time.
Another problematic example is found in Alma chapter 27:
Zarahemla evidently controlled the land Jershon to the extent that they could â??giveâ? it to another group of people. Again, using Sorensonâ??s, Deanne Mathenyâ??s, and actual Mesoamerican maps, Jershon is approximately 160 miles from Zarahemla.
Other scriptures also name â??Nephiteâ? cities that were involved in battles. The approximate area involved 75,000 squares miles. This is a polity that rivals the Aztecs, with 80,000 square miles. No such polity existed in Mesoamerica, or anywhere on the American continent, during the BoM time frame.
The key to my response is your use of the word "apparently" above. You need to do and exact comparison of the politics of this area, with specific, hard evidence (eg written records) with the specific political structure in the BOM text.
I wrote a lengthier essay on this topic, and a few other BoM issues, for zarahemlacitylimits, for those interested in more details and references.
Apparently you have chosen to ignore my comments on your article, but you can redeem yourself here in this thread. Give us the precise political structure in specific (Nephite) cities during the BOM time period as evidence by specific archeological evidence. I asked for this previously, and I assume you will ignore me as you did before..... because you cannot do it, other than generalized evidence over several centuries and wide geographical areas.
Get specfic, sir.
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index....ities_and_Power

beastie · January 20, 2007

Charles,

I often ignore you because I don't know how to communicate with someone who believes there is no justification for any theories regarding ancient Mesoamerica due to the fact that we have limited (not zero, as you suggest) writings. If you believe that archaeology is just a pseudo-science in general, and no reliable theories can be constructed in the absence of extensive writings, there's not much I can do about that.

If you are suggesting that because I cannot provide writings from, say, exactly 100 BC, then I have no right to suggest that no extensive polity such as described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, then you really do believe archaeology is a pointless field. That's fine, you have a right to your beliefs. I'm not interested in arguing that point. You can interpret my lack of interest in arguing that point in whatever way gratifies your ego or needs.

Notice that Brant mainly argues against my interpretation of the BoM, not my statement that such a polity did not exist in the specified time frame in ancient Mesoamerica. In fact, he agrees that the polity I believe is described in the BoM didn't exist in ancient Mesoamerica, either.

For those interested in specific examples, such as the suggested setting for Zarahemla and the City of Nephi, I did discuss those in detail in the essay I linked. I have no idea if Charles simply didn't read it or is choosing to ignore it.

Cold Steel · January 20, 2007

My point is, again, that Clark gives this long list of things that Joseph supposedly couldn't have known. Clearly, that's not the case. Where Clark makes assertions about timelines and history, he tells us he's not going to go into detail because there's no time. So, it's difficult to respond to vague assertions about how Jaredite history mirrors the Olmec, while the idea that the Maya correspond to Nephite history is, again, problematic, given that a society in ruins doesn't usually blossom in a classic period.

Well, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, he would have had to be quite the scholar, wouldn't he? Not only did he research all these points and cherry pick the ones that sounded the best, he also weaved into his fanciful book a brilliant exegesis of Isaiah and other prophets.

In the Nephi Project's video, George Potter and his friends came upon a large canyon just beyond a thriving oasis, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon. It had a "river of water" flowing along side of it and an ancient campsite that dated back to the time of Lehi. Nephi said they built an altar of stones on top of a hill and the team found an altar of stones on a hill over the campsite. Interestingly, one of the team members lifted a stone and discovered a stone box in the earth beneath. It wasn't large enough for plates, but it apparently held something smaller, perhaps of great value.

How would Ethan Smith, Spalding or Joseph Smith know of this canyon, the oasis, NHM and later the harbor? It seems to me that the prophet would have had to have an education beyond his means. I find the other alternative to be far more compelling. For a young boy to create a world religion with competent scholars defending his work is some achievement. A miraculous achievement even.

Regarding the oft-argued NHM, Kent Brown pointed out the way this all works:

For those who do not believe that the narrative of First Nephi authentically goes back to a record written in the early sixth century B.C., any proposed link will lack merit. It is a matter, in my view, of oneâ??s beginning assumptions. Since I believe that the account of First Nephi is authentic and offers a snapshot of life in ancient Arabia, I accept the likelihood of a tie between the area of the NHM tribe and Nephiâ??s Nahom. My reasons are spelled out in the short article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (8/1 [1999]) and I stand on what I wrote on that occasion.

The same is true of everything else. Those who don't believe in the story about angels and visions will always find a reason Joseph could have known of all the details in the Book of Mormon. To step back and see what he accomplished is truly mind boggling, no matter which side of the argument you come down on.

The Dude · January 20, 2007

Cold Steel:

What do you think of Not Quite Me's correspondences between the Moundbuilder myths and the Book of Mormon? Do you accept them as real, and not manufactured by critics, as Brant does? If so, how do you explain them?

Since I believe that the account of First Nephi is authentic and offers a snapshot of life in ancient Arabia, I accept the likelihood of a tie between the area of the NHM tribe and Nephiâ??s Nahom.

Of course if you are believer you will accept the likelyhood that the NHM site is a BoM site. I think that is quite reasonable, but it ends right there. It is not a proven site, only a likely site, and so it is a gross overstatement to turn to critics and start shouting about "how could Joseph Smith have known of this site?" You are getting way ahead of yourself.

The same is true of everything else. Those who don't believe in the story about angels and visions will always find a reason Joseph could have known of all the details in the Book of Mormon.

You are misstating the critics' view. I see no reason why Joseph could have known or needed to know about a site like NHM or any other apparent correspondence in order to write the things he wrote.

To step back and see what he accomplished is truly mind boggling, no matter which side of the argument you come down on.

How the BoM came about is a significant question, I will be the first to admit. But what is mind boggling is the logic that drives believers on this board to rhetorically ask "How could Joseph have known?"

cdowis · January 20, 2007

Charles,
I often ignore you because I don't know how to communicate with someone who believes there is no justification for any theories regarding ancient Mesoamerica due to the fact that we have limited (not zero, as you suggest) writings.
OK, here is a test of facts. Please give us a list of extant writings from the BOM time period in question. It is a reasonable request and will give us a simple test of your research.
(By records, I am not speaking of inscriptions. Perhaps we differ on definitions.)
If you believe that archaeology is just a pseudo-science in general, and no reliable theories can be constructed in the absence of extensive writings, there's not much I can do about that.
We agree. Most of what we know about Rome and the history of Europe is based on written records, not artifacts. If we were to take away these written records, how much would we really know about the political situation in Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem? Again, that is a simple test of your theory that we are able to give specific information on the politics in a specific area, in a small window of time of a couple hundred years, based solely on inscriptions and artifacts.
Do you really think you are up to the task to get rid of these records, and give such information?
Again, I agree that we must simply disagree.
If you are suggesting that because I cannot provide writings from, say, exactly 100 BC, then I have no right to suggest that no extensive polity such as described in the BoM existed in ancient Mesoamerica, then you really do believe archaeology is a pointless field.
Again I find it is interesting when someone has a very weak position, they find it necessary to put words into my mouth. You present some phoney argument and then pretend to refute it.
I agree it is best that you ignore me, and I will do the same.

Cold Steel · January 21, 2007

What do you think of Not Quite Me's correspondences between the Moundbuilder myths and the Book of Mormon? Do you accept them as real, and not manufactured by critics, as Brant does? If so, how do you explain them?

I don't have any problems with what he says outright, other than the obvious question of how much of what he says could have been known to young Joseph Smith, or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon. The answer is, he could have known everything. The probabilities of him knowning that is altogether different. At the time of Jesus' birth, messianic fever was running high and there were numerous claimants. In Joseph Smith's time there was some expectation of a restoration, either of the church or spiritual gifts. Joseph Smith could have either exploited these expectations or fulfilled them, just as Jesus could have done in His day. The real evidences of the Book of Mormon are in the content.

Of course if you are believer you will accept the likelyhood that the NHM site is a BoM site. I think that is quite reasonable, but it ends right there. It is not a proven site, only a likely site, and so it is a gross overstatement to turn to critics and start shouting about "how could Joseph Smith have known of this site?" You are getting way ahead of yourself.

No, I feel the liklihood of NHM being solid evidence is quite high. It's a name place that's in the right time, it's in the right place. No one knew it was a burial site until 1996. Of course it can be casually dismissed, but most believers know we've got a huge advantage on this. Chalk that up with the Valley of Lemuel, the oasis, and the river of water and it becomes even more convincing.

You are misstating the critics' view. I see no reason why Joseph could have known or needed to know about a site like NHM or any other apparent correspondence in order to write the things he wrote.
How the BoM came about is a significant question, I will be the first to admit. But what is mind boggling is the logic that drives believers on this board to rhetorically ask "How could Joseph have known?"

Well, I don't want to mistate the critics, but if I put myself in their position, I have to discount anything that might be in Joseph Smith's favor while emphasizing the things he could have known, the things he would have known, and the things he should have known. As for believers, I think you're mistating them. We're not led by logic. We admit it's a spiritual thing. But since it's not a mutual point on which we can communicate, we try to use logic whenever we can.

The thing is, even if Joseph had had all the resources of the Internet, the Book of Mormon could still be verified through prayer and through the Holy Ghost.

The Dude · January 21, 2007

What do you think of Not Quite Me's correspondences between the Moundbuilder myths and the Book of Mormon? Do you accept them as real, and not manufactured by critics, as Brant does? If so, how do you explain them?
I don't have any problems with what he says outright, other than the obvious question of how much of what he says could have been known to young Joseph Smith, or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon. The answer is, he could have known everything. The probabilities of him knowning that is altogether different. At the time of Jesus' birth, messianic fever was running high and there were numerous claimants. In Joseph Smith's time there was some expectation of a restoration, either of the church or spiritual gifts. Joseph Smith could have either exploited these expectations or fulfilled them, just as Jesus could have done in His day. The real evidences of the Book of Mormon are in the content.

I'm sorry I'm not following you. Either you didn't understand my question, or I'm too slow to unravel how this is an answer to it. Oh well at least we tried.

No, I feel the liklihood of NHM being solid evidence is quite high. It's a name place that's in the right time, it's in the right place. No one knew it was a burial site until 1996. Of course it can be casually dismissed, but most believers know we've got a huge advantage on this. Chalk that up with the Valley of Lemuel, the oasis, and the river of water and it becomes even more convincing.

Important: this is where we differ. You think the NHM site is quite solid evidence and I think it's circumstantial evidence. Go ahead and call my response a causal dismissal if you wish, and blame it on my warts and crooked nose. But now that this is on the table, what is the point of asking me "how could Joseph Smith have known?" Do you see how that is a silly question to ask me? I'm thinking how could joseph smith have known that future believers would be able to cobble together a series of circumstantial hits to support his fictional novel? what kind of pointless question is that? See, there's no logic to you asking me that question, or posting that kind of thing in response to me.

Yet that is the basic logic of BoM proofs. It's an interesting pattern, to say the least.

Brant Gardner · January 21, 2007

I'm thinking how could joseph smith have known that future believers would be able to cobble together a series of circumstantial hits to support his fictional novel? what kind of pointless question is that?

The problem with this characterization is that you have condemned much of history, and certainly what is "known" for Mesoamerica. There are so few documents that most of it is cobbled together from a series of circumstantial hits. That describes much of the entire field of ethnohistory.

I understand that you are speaking of furtunate coincidence, but when fortunate coincidences keep piling together in particular ways, they are less likely to be coincidental. The trick is that you need more than one. That is the reason that it can be debated that the NHM correlation is coincidental when viewed as a single piece of evidence (the name). It is less coincidental when added to the time depth. It is less coincidental when added to the location where a divergence in trails is "coincidental" with the description in the Book of Mormon. All of that is a series of coincidences that are much more compelling than just the name. However, even that could be coincidental if there were nothing more. I think the book Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem lays out a solid set of "series of circumstantial hits" that not only exceed chance, but depend upon a body of knowledge that is both newer and contradictory to much of what was formerly understood of the time period. And that is before we get to the New World which is my field.

serapha · January 21, 2007

In the Nephi Project's video, George Potter and his friends came upon a large canyon just beyond a thriving oasis, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon. It had a "river of water" flowing along side of it and an ancient campsite that dated back to the time of Lehi. Nephi said they built an altar of stones on top of a hill and the team found an altar of stones on a hill over the campsite. Interestingly, one of the team members lifted a stone and discovered a stone box in the earth beneath. It wasn't large enough for plates, but it apparently held something smaller, perhaps of great value.

Hi there...

I try to stay out of these discussions also because of the indepth amount of research and time it takes to continue the discussion... But let's bring a couple of FACTS to light.

1. The team did not find an "altar". They found stones that they deterined to be an altar without the knowledge of either an archaeologist or anthropologist present on the team.

2. One evidence that the pile of rocks was an altar was the presence of potsherds, and pots were used for holding oil. Hello? did anyone do a lipid analysis of the potsherds that were present to see if THESE pots were used for holding oil? No... again.... nothing but an assessment of amateurs without any evidences.

3. Even the suggestion of an altar goes contrary to what Jews believed. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom, the sacrifices were made by corporate worship in the temple in Jerusalem, may I remind you that this temple was built under the direction of God's instructions... Why would God change the form of worship back to individual sacrifice when He had directed HIS people into corporate worship at the Temple in Jerusalem?

. Since I believe that the account of First Nephi is authentic and offers a snapshot of life in ancient Arabia, I accept the likelihood of a tie between the area of the NHM tribe and Nephiâ??s Nahom. My reasons are spelled out in the short article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (8/1 [1999]) and I stand on what I wrote on that occasion.
The same is true of everything else. Those who don't believe in the story about angels and visions will always find a reason Joseph could have known of all the details in the Book of Mormon. To step back and see what he accomplished is truly mind boggling, no matter which side of the argument you come down on.

Well, one of my reasons for rejecting the Book of Mormon is because of the problematic areas concerning THAT snapshot of life in ancient Arabia.

~serapha~

serapha · January 21, 2007

No, I feel the liklihood of NHM being solid evidence is quite high. It's a name place that's in the right time, it's in the right place.

I guess that NHM was being used in the right context, also,huh? That particular "evidence carries the dis and cresceent which are the symbols of the sun goddess. I guess the evangelistic efforts of this small group weren't significant enough to convert those living in the generalized area, just significant enough to provide a name in "the right time... the right place"?

~serapha~

thesometimesaint · January 21, 2007

serapha:

The NHM was already there when Lehi showed up. The BoM discusses NO attempt to evangelize the people already in that area.

beastie · January 21, 2007

As I suspected, my interaction with charles is a recycled conversation. He claims I ignore his questions, but the fact is that I have answered them with quite a bit of detail in the past. He has every right to reject my answer as adequate, but he does not have the right to pretend I have ignored these questions. So here is my recycled answer for those who, as a response to the fact that what scholars believe about Mesoamerica contradicts the claims of the BoM (unless, as Brant claims, I am misinterpreting the BoM), act as if archaeologists don't really know much at all about the Mesoamerican/BoM time period.

Defense of Archaeology

How We Know What We Know

Iâ??ve seen this line of thinking expressed so frequently in BoM discussions that I decided it was worth my time to address is. Iâ??m going to coin the term â??know nothingsâ? to designate the position that we really donâ??t know enough about Mesoamerica to make an informed judgment about whether or not the BoM really fits the background culture and chronology. The reasons given are normally that we really canâ??t know much about what happened thousands of years ago, that our inherent bias is too overwhelming, and that they didnâ??t have â??written recordsâ? (which, btw, is not an accurate statement unless qualified to time periods).

So how do the scholars in the field justify presenting the picture of ancient Mesoamerica that they pretty consistently do? The following are some comments addressing that point, made by some of the most highly respected scholars in the field.

First, they do realize they are working under certain limitations, but those limitations do not amount to â??know nothingnessâ?.

Maya Cosmos, Three Thousand Years on the Shamanâ??s Path by David Freidel, Linda Schele and Joy Parker

The ruins of Chichâ??en Itza are not the Chichâ??en Itza conceptualized by the ancient Maya. This city has become part of our contemporary experience. Because we modern pilgrims are ignorant of the intentions of the original builders, we impress our own meanings and aesthetic values on the Maya monuments, just as we always do when we contemplate masterworks of art from other cultures and other times. At Chichâ??en, all that is different is the scale â?? in this huge museum, visitors stand inside the artifact they have come to see. And our ignorance is convenient, for it allows free rein to the modern imagination. We see in these ruins what we want to see, be it affirmation of the romantic mysticism of springtime pilgrims, or the practical materialism of many modern scholars who devote lifetimes to studying the Maya. And when we begin to understand what the builders intended â?? through our decipherment of the Maya dedicatory texts, analysis of their images, and the study of their architecture and the artifacts they left littering the landscape, we learn that our imaginations have been constrained by our own cultural filters in tricky and deceptive ways. Though we have tried to interpret the intentions of the Maya within the context of what we see as â??civilized behaviorâ??, somehow their culture just does not make a â??fitâ? with the patterns of behavior laid down in our own world. We are forced to acknowledge that our perception of the past is always a prisoner of the present. Our reconstruction of the mountains inside the Maya mind is, like the pyramidal mountains restored by the careful archaeologist, an interpretation and not the true original.
(36)

But even given the constraints of our understanding, the scholars still assert that knowledge IS possible. I will try to share quotes from several authors that demonstrate WHY knowledge IS possible.

From the same text:

Once we have discovered the rationales of the Maya â?? through the words and actions of the Maya themselves â?? it is our heartfelt belief that we will also discover a central truth: that Don Pabloâ??s (my insert â?? a modern Maya) rickety altar of saplings erected in the parched woods, the ruined temples of Yaxuna built at the dawn of the Maya civilization, and the Castillo of Chichâ??en Itza raised in its final glory are essentially forms of the same thing. They are all symbols of the Creation of the cosmos. They are all instruments for accessing spiritual power from the creative act, and that power continues as a fundamentally human experience and responsibility. In this common purpose, they are signposts on the Maya road to reality stretching across the landscape of history. (37)

(off topic comment, isnâ??t that beautiful writing? I love it when experts can actually write in a captivating manner that helps even us dummy laymen grasp their points.)

More comments from the same text:

Sometimes the patterns of modern Maya spiritual belief are embedded in ritual actions and the Classic-period meanings are lost or changed. Sometime the meanings from Classic times remain but are attached to different symbols. Regardless of the transformational processes at work, we can still discern continuities in the basic structures. And these continuities will often elicit new possibilities of relating the past to the present. (57)

And one more from this text:

The lowland Maya began raising sacred mountain-pyramids of their own by at least 600 BC. They soon became masters at sculpting in plaster, the abundantly available architectural material of the region. By around 300 BC Maya master builders were decorating their human-made mountains with extraordinary cosmic images. These artisans, like their Olmec counterparts, did not yet put lengthy texts on their buildings. Nevertheless, we can identify the meaning of their designs because the Classic-period Maya who followed them retained the strategic symbolism of the early Maya builders quite faithfully. And these later descendants put text on much of their art â?? ranging from single glyphs to entire histories. We can extrapolate the meaning of these symbols and images backwards into the Preclassic Maya world with considerable confidence. (139)

Ancient Maya, The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization, by Arthur Demarest

Maya archaeology has shown unusual promise in revealing the patterning of a vanished non-Western society and the lessons that such patterns might have for contemporary social science. Repetition in architectural layouts, symbols, and activities provides one key to understanding Maya political structure and ideology. This ideological structuring of ancient material culture is more easily interpreted in the case of the ancient Maya because the ethnohistoric and modern Maya continued modified forms of these ancient traditions, beliefs, and rituals. Archaeological interpretation of patterning is now also being aided by the heiroglyphic texts found on artifacts found on artifacts and stone monuments, which provide information otherwise unattainable by the best archaeological research. Most such epigraphic insights concern elite culture and society, and only some features and practices can be extrapolated to the entire population. Yet, if we are careful not to naively accept and overemphasize their elite perspective, the inscriptions reveal particular aspects of Maya culture and thought, and they provide a timeline for major political events and influential trends of the Classic period. (100)

from Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World by Lynn Foster

When one thinks about the Maya civilization of southern Mexico and northern Central America, the adjective mysterious inevitably comes to mind. The mysterious Maya has been an epithet for this great people for the past two centuries at least. Early Spanish expeditions found the remains of great ruined cities and speculated that they were evidence of the lost tribes of Israel. Nineteenth-century travel writers explored the cities and echoed the same sentiments or brought the lost continent of Atlantis into the equation ; only a few travelers such as John Lloyd Stephens maintained that the cities and temples were built by the ancestors of the very people whose villages and towns they passed through on their journeys: the Maya. Even in the middle of the 20th century â?? when virtually all scholars agreed that the ruined cities in the jungle were built by ancient Maya â?? there was considerable debate about the origin and nature of Maya civilizationâ?¦
On the heiroglyphic front, major discoveries between 1958 and 1964 led to the discovery of the names of historical individuals and of the cities they ruled. These cities were governed by the dynasties of kings, and the magnificent stone stelae, altars, and lintels recorded their exploits â?? their births and deaths, their conquests and ceremonies.
Thus over the past 40 years or so, and especially over the past 20 years, the popular view of the ancient Maya has been radically transformed. The earlier view of a strange society unlike any other in Earthâ??s history has yielded to one that has much more in common with other world civilizations. Finally, the Maya have become less mysterious â?? and more human â?? with human strengths and foibles.
There has not been any single great breakthrough in the study of the Maya that has been responsible for this progress, although breakthroughs there have certainly been. Rather, the advances have been similar to those in most other fields of endeavour; they are the result of patient and painstaking work by dozens of scholars working in a variety of disciplines to find yet one more piece of the puzzle. And while the puzzle still has many missing pieces, both the â??big pictureâ? and many of its details are now clear and in focus.
The recent advances in our knowledge of the ancient Maya have been the result of research in many fields â?? archaeology, epigraphy, ethnohistory â?? and the result of learning from the contemporary Mayaâ?¦
(my insert, paragraphs citing specific breakthroughs)
A great source of our knowledge of the ancient Maya is the wealth of â??ethnohistoricalâ? data that survives about the Maya. From the Quiche Maya of highland Guatemala we have their great epic the Popol Vuh, which includes one of humankindâ??s great creation stories. From northern Yucatan we have the Books of the Chilam Balam, with their mixture of prophecy and arcane astrological knowledge, and a book of medical incantations, the Ritual of the Bacabs â?? to name just a fewâ?¦.
One of the great advantages in our understanding of the ancient Maya is the fact that the Maya are still very much alive. The contemporary Maya number in the millions, and there are still two dozen Mayan languages spoken today. In some cases the Maya are still practicing traditions that are thousands of years old. Our ability to learn from the contemporary Maya about their ancient forebears is in stark contrast to some other ancient civilizations, such as that of Sumer and ancient Egypt. (viii)

One last quote that is more explicit:

Maya Political Science â?? Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos by Prudence M. Rice

Archaeologistsâ?? interpretations of the past have their conceptual basis in analogy and analogical reasoning. An analogy is a similarity that permits comparison, a relationship between the familiar and the unfamiliar that increases understanding of the latter. Analogical reasoning is a type of inferential argument used in logic, linguistics, mathematics, biology, and many social science fields, in which â??one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect on the basis of the known similarity in other respects. Simultaneously objective, subjective, deductive, inductive, and abductive, analogical reasoning invokes comparisons between the unknown and the known on the basis of recognition of shared similarities or homologies in the relations between things, not in the things themselvesâ?¦
The most appropriate, credible, and enlightening kinds of analogies in archaeology, then, are specific rather than general, and are drawn from known continuities through the direct-historical approach. This process for investigating culture [pre]histories involves â??working back into prehistoric time from the documented historical horizonâ?. Its advantage is the greater â??prior probabilityâ? that a given analogy is correct because of known continuties in the compared cultures.
What is the best or most appropriate source of analogy for explaining Classic lowland Maya political organizations? My position favors the direct-historical approach, and thus I seek similarities between the Classic lowland Maya and their Postclassic, early Colonial period, and modern descendants in the lowlands. â??Most appropriateâ? does not mean perfect isomorophism, freedom from error, absolute â??truthâ? or proof of a theory. Clearly circumstances differ between the Maya in Peten (the modern political unit encompassing northern Guatemala) in AD 750 and the Maya in northern Yucatan in AD 1500-1950. And by adopting the direct-historical approach as the methodological armature of my study, I am neither negating nor ignoring the usefulness of insights gained from analogies to behavior, events, and phenomena drawn from farther afield. Nevertheless, I maintain that we can learn more about Classic Maya political organization by working back from the Postclassic lowland Maya than we can by beginning with African chiefdoms or feudal Europe. {p 4)

And from a source outside Mesoamerican, William Dever, who maintains artifacts are like text:

Dever
What did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?
66
Text as Data
If the postprocessualists have set us back again upon the right rack in studying the past â?? assaying to write history based on archaeological data- we must confront once again questions raised earlier. What kind of history do we want? How do artifacts constitute data, and are such data primary or secondary? Here we may take a clue from the postprocessualists themselves. One of their persistent themes is â??readingâ? the artifacts, not unlike reading texts. In fact, artifacts are texts, and similarly informative when skillfully and sympathetically interpreted. (Wonâ??t that be news to the revisionists?)
We might begin to move beyond this impasse by developing a tentative outline of a â??grammarâ? of texts, based on what I would argue are parallels between artifacts and texts. Here, in chart form, is what we must know in order to â??readâ? or interpret texts and artifacts, both as â??objectsâ? in themselves and as â??signsâ?.
Texts.........................................................Artifact
Writing system..................................................... â??Languageâ? of material culture
Vocabulary.......................................................... Artifacts of all types
Grammar............................................................ Formation processes
Syntax................................................................ Ecological, socio-cultural context
Author, composition, date...................................... Date, technology
Cultural context....................................................Overall historical setting
Intent.................................................................. â??Mental Templateâ? of makers
Later transmission, interpretation........................... Natural-cultural transformation
What the text â??symbolizesâ? ...................................What the artifact â??symbolizesâ?
How its â??meaningâ? is relevant today.........................How its â??meaningâ? is relevant today

In fact, Dever has constructed his own theory about the earliest period of Israelite "existence" in "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?". He relies very heavily on artifacts, such as pottery, and makes this statement, which is pertinent to BoM apologia:

I would argue that such direct, long-term continuities between earlier Canaanite pottery and later Iron I Israelite pottery, readily documented now, cannot be the result of coincidence. Nor can they be explained by continuing to regard the early Israelites as foreigners, newcomers to Canaan from Transjordan and ultimately from Egypt. To defend the latter view, one would have to argue that (1) these intruders brought with them no pottery traditions whatsoever, and (2) that upon arriving they immediately adopted the local pottery repertoire and replicated it exactly. That would be astounding, and also unprecedented in my experience. page 121

I have no doubt that some of you will not be reassured by the confidence of these scholars. I know that some of you will prefer to believe that they have overextended the possible knowledge, and that what they say doesnâ??t really matter much, in the end. It is my opinion that you would not be so dismissive of the knowledge of scholars if their analysis were more supportive to the Book of Mormon story, but that is just my opinion.

beastie · January 21, 2007

And in response to this bizarre assertion:

Apparently you have chosen to ignore my comments on your article, but you can redeem yourself here in this thread. Give us the precise political structure in specific (Nephite) cities during the BOM time period as evidence by specific archeological evidence. I asked for this previously, and I assume you will ignore me as you did before..... because you cannot do it, other than generalized evidence over several centuries and wide geographical areas.

On the website I have linked and referenced several times on this thread:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index....ities_and_Power

I wrote:

a - three pages describing basic terms describing polities and their political power

b - five pages comparing the City of Nephi to Kaminaljuyu

c - eleven pages comparing Zarahemal to Santa Rosa

as well as other specific details and comparisons

Yet, according to charles, I just don't give specifics. Perhaps this will clarify why I often choose to simply ignore him.

beastie · January 21, 2007

one more comment -

regardless of some details that may be unknown or disputed, I do not believe it can be disputed that, given the BoM time frame, any polity that could qualify for being Zarehemla or the City of Nephi would necessarily be a precociously developed polity. One consequence of that forced choice is that it is exactly those precociously developed polities that heavily influenced the entire religious, cultural, and political evolution of the entire region. I explore that in more detail in this essay, and how problematic it is for the Nephite-Judeo-Christian culture to be supposedly one of those polities:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index....gship/Holy_Lord

Cold Steel · January 21, 2007

I'm sorry I'm not following you. Either you didn't understand my question, or I'm too slow to unravel how this is an answer to it. Oh well at least we tried.

You asked what I thought of NotQuiteMe's correspondence regarding the moundbuilder myths. NotQuiteMe was responding to Dr. Clark's arguments that Joseph Smith probably could not have known about various aspects of Mesoamerican life. The moundbuilders apparently had many parallels, indicating that Smith indeed could have known about these aspects because they weren't peculiar to Mesoamerica. The underlying discussion is about what Smith could have known. I agreed, but raised the question of how Smith could have drawn from so many souces in his day. I also concede that there were expectations concerning a restoration and questions raised concerning the origin of the Amerindians. These greatly added to Smith's success in bringing forth the Book of Mormon, but also could have sparked the idea in him if he did concoct the Book of Mormon.

You think the NHM site is quite solid evidence and I think it's circumstantial evidence. Go ahead and call my response a causal dismissal if you wish, and blame it on my warts and crooked nose. But now that this is on the table, what is the point of asking me "how could Joseph Smith have known?" Do you see how that is a silly question to ask me?

I don't think I quite asked you how Joseph Smith could have known, but it is a legitimate question. Kent Brown observes:

There is another piece that one should add to the NHM issue. It concerns Nephiâ??s note that â??we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth,â? following events at Nahom (1 Ne. 17:1). This geographical notice is one of the few in Nephiâ??s narrative and invites examination. One observes that northwest of Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom of south Arabia, almost all roads turn east, veering from the general north-south direction of the incense trail. Moreover, the eastward bend occurs in the general area inhabited by the NHM tribe. (I add parenthetically that I assume that Lehiâ??s party had been following or shadowing the incense trail because wells were located at more or less regular intervals along the route. This view would fit most naturally with the observation in the Book of Mormon that Lehiâ??s party traveled in a generally south-southeast direction, an observation which matches the direction of the incense trail [see 1 Ne. 16:13-14, 33].) An important question is whether Joseph Smith could have learned about this eastward turn in the main incense trail. As far as I have been able to discover, no written source, Classical or contemporary, mentions it. It is my view, therefore, that only a person who had traveled either near or along the trail would know that it turned eastward in this area.

This is not a conclusive piece of evidence, but I do feel it is strong circumstantial evidence and has been greatly underestimated by the critics, who dismiss it far too readily and with little reason. If it hadn't been there in Lehi's time, that would be one thing. Or if no burials had been discovered there, that would be another. But it was there when Lehi lived and it was a burial ground, a fact heretofore unknown before 1996.

The Wikipedia listing for Nahom notes the meaning of Nahom: "The root NHM has different meanings. The South Arabian root NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is found repeatedly in the Bible and relates to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. Scholars consider this root appropriate when used to refer to a place of burial and the expression of mourning."

Sign In

Book Of Mormon Evidence

Recommended Posts

Not quite me

Brant Gardner

gitxsanartist

Not quite me

beastie

Brant Gardner

USU78

beastie

charity

beastie

cdowis

beastie

Cold Steel

The Dude

cdowis

Cold Steel

The Dude

Brant Gardner

serapha

serapha

thesometimesaint

beastie

beastie

beastie

Cold Steel

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse