Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[phaedrus ut]

Olmec-influenced city found in Mexico - Yahoo News

Slideshow images of the city

MEXICO CITY - A 2,500-year-old city influenced by the Olmecs, often referred to as the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica, has been discovered hundreds of miles away from the Olmecs' Gulf coast territory, archaeologists said.

The remains of Zazacatla are providing insight into the early arrival of advanced civilizations in central Mexico, while also providing lessons about the risks to ruins posed by modern development that now cover much of the ancient city.

Archaeologist Giselle Canto said Wednesday that two statues and architectural details at the site, 25 miles south of Mexico City, indicate that the inhabitants of Zazacatla adopted Olmec styles when they changed from a simple, egalitarian society to a more complex, hierarchical one.

"When their society became stratified, the new rulers needed emblems ... to justify their rule over people who used to be their equals," Canto said of the inhabitants, who may not have been ethnically Olmec, but apparently revered the culture as the most prestigious.

Zazacatla covered less than one square mile between 800 B.C.

I thought there would be some on the board interested in this.

Phaedrus

[structurecop]

Zazacatla covered less than one square mile between 800 B.C.

Really, really limited geography model!

[maklelan]

Really, really limited geography model!

Well, it's only one city, not the entire culture.

[Doctor Steuss]

Zazacatla covered less than one square mile between 800 B.C.

Any chance Nephi's calendar was off when he wrote his books in the BoM (off by maybe 200 or so years)?

[juliann]

The discovering has been done. There will be no more discoveries in South America that change anything. Surely we have learned that much from the countermos. This is a hoax or those guys are just really uniformed to be putting cultures closer and closer to a BOM timeline.

Did you see the Nova piece? The archaeologist almost died trying to get there...but we all know that if anything was there it would have been found by now. Anyway...the satellite technology sounds like it may produce a lot more finds.

[hagoth7]

Any chance Nephi's calendar was off when he wrote his books in the BoM (off by maybe 200 or so years)?

?

There's no need for a calendar adjustment.

Some writers suggest that the Olmecs parallel the Jaredites, who predated the Nephites.

[beastie]

The discovering has been done. There will be no more discoveries in South America that change anything. Surely we have learned that much from the countermos. This is a hoax or those guys are just really uniformed to be putting cultures closer and closer to a BOM timeline.

Did you see the Nova piece? The archaeologist almost died trying to get there...but we all know that if anything was there it would have been found by now. Anyway...the satellite technology sounds like it may produce a lot more finds.

It's always fun to beat up on a strawman, isn't it?

I have not seen one critic make the claim you have just attributed to countermos.

[charity]

beastie, the claim is implicit in the statement "Archeology proves that the Book of Mormon is not historic." And we have seen that here over and over.

Is there anything to the Z's? Zarahemla, Zazacatla. (That was a joke!)

[Not quite me]

beastie, the claim is implicit in the statement "Archeology proves that the Book of Mormon is not historic." And we have seen that here over and over.

I've been here about as long as you have, and I've never seen that claim.

Is there anything to the Z's? Zarahemla, Zazacatla. (That was a joke!)

That's it! I'm going back to church. (That was a joke, too!)

[beastie]

beastie, the claim is implicit in the statement "Archeology proves that the Book of Mormon is not historic." And we have seen that here over and over.

No, it is not.

[charity]

beastie, I must need to explain a little about logic to you. IF "archeology proves that the Book of Mormon is not historic" THEN that means that all there is to know has been found already and there won't be anything new.

IF on the other hand, critics would say, "So far, none of the discoveries appear to correlate with places described in the Book of Mormon" that is something else THEN we are leaving open the possibility of discovery.

However, I have seen very few (if any) critics admit that there may be discoveries in the future which will confirm the Book of Mormon as an historic text.

[The Dude]

However, I have seen very few (if any) critics admit that there may be discoveries in the future which will confirm the Book of Mormon as an historic text.

I admit there may be archaeological discoveries in the future which will confirm the Book of Mormon as an ancient american text. It's possible. There may also be discoveries that confirm the alleged link between crop circles and alien visitors.

I seem some real similarities here. Anybody else?

[charity]

Drat, the dude. I got my hopes up there in the first part of your statement, until you got weird on me. So, what you are really saying is you will not admit that there could be a civilization discovered which will confirm the Book of Mormon. Sort of a "when pigs fly" statement. Got it.

[Not quite me]

Drat, the dude. I got my hopes up there in the first part of your statement, until you got weird on me. So, what you are really saying is you will not admit that there could be a civilization discovered which will confirm the Book of Mormon. Sort of a "when pigs fly" statement. Got it.

I think he's expressing how I feel about it: highly unlikely, but not impossible.

[beastie]

beastie, I must need to explain a little about logic to you. IF "archeology proves that the Book of Mormon is not historic" THEN that means that all there is to know has been found already and there won't be anything new.

IF on the other hand, critics would say, "So far, none of the discoveries appear to correlate with places described in the Book of Mormon" that is something else THEN we are leaving open the possibility of discovery.

However, I have seen very few (if any) critics admit that there may be discoveries in the future which will confirm the Book of Mormon as an historic text.

As grateful as I am that you often are willing to condescend to explain basic logic and reading comprehension to me, I must beg to disagree with your assertion here.

The fact is that while discoveries continue to be made, and will continue to be made, there is already a bulk of known and accepted information about Mesoamerica. It is within that context that one can state that archaeology demonstrates that the BoM is not consistent with ancient Mesoamerica. The new discoveries would have to completely alter just about everything now known about ancient Mesoamerica, which is so highly improbable (thanks dude for the vivid demonstration) that it is within the bounds of reason and logic to make the statement that archaeology demonstrates that the BoM is not consistent with ancient Mesoamerica while simultaneously recognizing discoveries will continue to be made.

Let's expand on the dude's demonstration. To assert that archaeology demonstrates that aliens did not build the pyramids of Egypt does not logically equate denying that new discoveries about ancient Egypt and pyramids will continue to be made.

[charity]

I guess maybe we don't need to point to some here, although others may profit by it, that for many years Troy was considered to be non-existent. Just a myth. A story. And there was sure a lot of evidence (or non-evidence) for the non-existence of Troy. Until Schleiman found it. And anyone who isn't familiar with the "has turned the archeological world on its head" phrase in describing new discoveries, has not been reading much.

[beastie]

I guess maybe we don't need to point to some here, although others may profit by it, that for many years Troy was considered to be non-existent. Just a myth. A story. And there was sure a lot of evidence (or non-evidence) for the non-existence of Troy. Until Schleiman found it. And anyone who isn't familiar with the "has turned the archeological world on its head" phrase in describing new discoveries, has not been reading much.

You had more hope of such a break-through before the glyphs were cracked. That has narrowed just how much information can dramatically alter our understanding of ancient Mesoamerica. For example, the oft-repeated fact that earlier experts believed the Maya were peaceful was categorically debunked because of the decoding of the glyphs. (btw, the idea that the Maya were peaceful was popular long after JS' time period - during his time period, the common imagining of the ancient americas was quite in line with the content of the BoM)

It seems to me that the main thrust of BoM apologia, now-a-days, seems to focus on finding Mesoamerica in the BoM, rather than finding the BoM in Mesoamerica. IOW, the focus is on interpreting the text in a way compatible with accepted knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica. There is a reason for that.

[charity]

The reason is that we must stay with the text. The unsophisticated have always looked for the dramatic evidence. That is a common enough natural tendency. But the scientists among us are more careful than that. Scientific method has always worked that way.

[Zakuska]

Amen Charity!

How can archeology prove the BOM wrong? The only thing Archeology can really say is that we have the wrong area.

Whats the first law of Logic? You can't prove a negative.

The critics position is built on sand and a logical fallacy.

As far as new world archeology we can at least say the records silent. But then we look at old world archeology and a very different picture emerges.

Jerusalem, river + valley, NMH, Bountiful Right where the BOM places them.

[beastie]

Premature victory dance, Zak. Charity is the one who used the universal denial, but in my statements I am muc more specific. See my post above:

It is within that context that one can state that archaeology demonstrates that the BoM is not consistent with ancient Mesoamerica.

Of course, there is good reason BoM apologists focus on Mesoamerica. It was the site of the most advanced civilization during the BoM time period. Choosing any other area will only magnify the present difficulties.

[Zakuska]

Silly beastie, Dontcha know...? White men can't dance.

It brings into question several of the most recent critical works... the recent video with Murphy commenting on DNA and proping up Biblical Archeology against BOM archeology.

Critics better be much more specific in the future.

[Ray Agostini]

Why is it so difficult to locate a civilisation the size the BoM describes? (Even if it was not as large as originally assumed) Archaeology has unearthed remains of small Viking settlements in North America around 1000 AD.

The Archaeological Discoveries

Through archaeology we are still learning many things about the Viking culture. Evidence of settlements has been discovered in their homelands, as well as England, Ireland, Iceland, and Greenland. Remains of dwellings and everyday objects have been found in numerous sites. But the most exciting discoveries are the remains of buried ships.

In 1867 the remains of a twenty-meter long ship were unearthed in Tune, Norway. According to recent analysis it was built around 890. In 1880 the remains of another ship were found in Gokstad, Norway. It was also built in 890 and measured twenty-four meters in length. The year 1906 saw the discovery of another ship in Oseberg, Norway. It measured 22 meters in length, was built around the year 820 and apparently buried in 834. Coins, weapons and other valuable objects were found inside the ships, confirming the tales of Viking funerals.

In 1960 a group of Norwegian archaeologists discovered the remains of eight long houses on the Canadian island of L'anse aux Meadows. They were proven to be of Nordic design. Other typical Viking objects were also found, such as pins, stone lamps, and some carved wooden pieces believed to be ship fittings.

Further excavations -- from 1973 to 1976 -- uncovered even more utensils and about 2000 pieces of worked wood. It was mostly debris from smoothing and trimming logs, as the Vikings prepared wood to be taken back to Greenland. The Canadian Government reconstructed three of the Viking buildings, and the locale was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1978.

To this day it is still unclear just why the Viking culture literally spilled over into neighboring countries from the eighth century onwards. Some scholars believe a growing population demanded the search for new territories. Others think that a divided and unstable Europe proved fertile ground for Viking raids. Yet there are those who believe that the superiority of Viking maritime technology and tactics gave them a distinct advantage over other cultures, prompting such raids. We may never know for sure.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20010827/vikings.shtml

[charity]

Ray A, for one thing, climate. Cold and dry are a lot easier on artifacts than hot and damp.

[Ray Agostini]

Artifacts from the Olmec and Maya have survived to this day. Which archaeologist agrees that the Olmec or Maya relate to the BoM, through the use of the evidence? If the Nephites built a temple "after the manner of Solomon", where is this temple?

[charity]

Still under the jungle growth, as was that Olmec city until just recently discovered? Or maybe torn down and the construction materials carted away to make something else? We were in Nauvoo 10 years ago. Nothing was left of the original Nauvoo Temple and that had been less than 160 earlier.