Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[Orpheus]

EVerybody get back on topic irght now. Fortigurn I just mangled one of your posts when I was trying to clean up. I'm deleting posts.

I've deleted several on the last page so if somebodys is missing that is why. Stop talking about posters.

[Fortigurn]

Where are you getting your stuff from?

Proximate textual and archaeological evidence.

[beastie]

It is very important to keep pointing out Beastie's methods. One of the best examples I have seen is her use of Dever. She uses him, a prominent expert as if he represents a very disputed and contentious area of study. She has tried to use Dever before so she knows that Dever is just one of many in a very disputed and contentious area of study...the beginnings of Israel and the place of the OT. She either doesn't think it matters that she is withholding information or she knows it does matter. Neither option places her in a credible position. Very generally stated the debate began over a conquest model, the peaceful infiltration model or a peasant revolt model. Beastie needs us to only think there is one model..the one she thinks supports her opinion about BOM settlement.

This is explained in an easily understandable way on the BAS site:

http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/0...3d1&UserID=

There is no need to withhold information unless it is important that the reader be guided to a particular conclusion. Beastie tries to hide vital competing information or refused to admit it exists in every interaction I have observed regardless of the topic. She has to in order to maintain the conclusion she started with.

What is ironic about her false picture of the Israelites beginnings is that the theories work against her conclusion not for it. As can be seen from the article, Beastie's pet theory about immigrants bringing identifiable materials that signal their presence isn't supported by the very scholarship she threw in the arena. Shanks explains the houses and pottery found in the new developments in the Canaan hill country...which are being attributed to the first Israelites.

It is very important to keep pointing out Juliannâ??s methods. There are quite a few examples, including her recent attempt to â??catchâ? me by providing a googled text that she proclaimed said the exact opposite thing I had asserted. I demonstrated that the googled text actually supported my assertion and invited Juliann to back up her claim. She refused, which is also her method. Another example is when she utilized a quote from Linda Scheleâ??s â??A Code of Kingsâ? that she claimed showed there was no good evidence for the connection of human sacrifice to the Mesoamerican ballgame. Although I did not have that book at that particular time, I was able to demonstrate her fallacious interpretation of the citation anyway. Later I obtained the text and realized that there is no way someone could have reasonably interpreted the citation in the way she did unless she had completely ignored the entire context of the chapter and book. Another example is from the Bromley episode, wherein she utilized several quotes to back up her apostate theory without alerting the readers that she had left out important context that would allow the reader to know she was using the citation in application to a very difficult model than every essay in the book had used. At the same time that she is deeply engaged in the task of stripping quotes from their context, she accuses me of doing the same. For example, look at the quote she offered from her linked article:

At one time, the four-room house was considered a peculiarly Israelite style of architecture, but we will soon see that this is not necessarily true.

The settlers in the hill country also had a new kind of storage jar that is called a collared-rim jar. The collar is right around the shoulder, just below the neck of the vessel. Itâ??s a little decorative element. It doesnâ??t have a function. And at one time this was thought to be a style of Israelite pottery. If you found the collared-rim jars in an excavation this was an indication that it was an Israelite context, but this too is not necessarily true.

Why does Juliann seem to assume no one will actually read the article she links? Is it because she so rarely does herself? Look at the next sentence in her citation by providing more context surrounding the quote:

At one time, the four-room house was considered a peculiarly Israelite style of architecture, but we will soon see that this is not necessarily true.

The settlers in the hill country also had a new kind of storage jar that is called a collared-rim jar. The collar is right around the shoulder, just below the neck of the vessel. Itâ??s a little decorative element. It doesnâ??t have a function. And at one time this was thought to be a style of Israelite pottery. If you found the collared-rim jars in an excavation this was an indication that it was an Israelite context, but this too is not necessarily true.

But you can see the picture that is emergingâ??new inhabitants occupying the sparsely settled hill countryâ??just the area that the Bible says the Israelites settled in when they crossed the Jordanâ??and a special kind of architecture and a special style of pottery. It is very tempting to say that here we have the incoming Israelites.

But is this enough to call these people Israelites? Many scholars donâ??t think it is. For example, some of these four-room houses have been found outside the areas supposedly settled by the Israelites, including sites east of the Jordan. Moreover, antecedents of this architecture can be found among the earlier Canaanites.

As for the collared-rim jars, the use of these particular vessels may simply reflect needs of anyone living in the hill country to transport water. The collared-rim jar does not necessarily reflect ethnicity. It may simply reflect the peculiar needs of anyoneâ??Israelite or Canaaniteâ??living in the hill country.

I confess that I donâ??t find either of these arguments very convincing, but thatâ??s beside the point.

Is the fact that Shanks doesnâ??t find these arguments convincing important for Juliann to share? I think so. Moreover, she claims that her linked article disputes my claim that archaeologists believe that one can find archaeological evidence of a group of foreigners when it does not dispute that claim at all. In fact, one of the evidences that Shanks uses to suggest that it is still possible that the Israelites were not native to Canaan actually supports my entire contention, and Deverâ??s statement: that when foreigners move to a new land, their presence can be detected archaeologically because they do not abandon their former material traditions and simply adopt, whole-cloth, the traditions of the new land. He shares the Merneptah Stele which explicitly refers to Isreal as an entity (hence debunking the postmodernists who claim otherwise) and talks some reliefs found in a temple that seem to illustrate this event:

A final point about the Merneptah Stele and its significance. Very recently, some reliefs on a temple at Karnak have been identified as illustrations of this famous passage from the Merneptah Stele.i One panel of reliefs represents Ashkelon; other panels appear to represent the other Canaanite cities mentioned in the Merneptah Stele. Unfortunately, there is still a dispute as to which panel or panels pictures the Israelites. In one panel that is a contender, the Israelites have long togas or skirts, just like the other Canaanites. So it is argued that this supports the contention that Israel emerged out of Canaanite society. In another panel which supposedly represents the Israelites, they have short skirts, quite unlike the Canaanites, so this supports the argument that the Israelites entered Canaan from outside the land.j

My goodness! Can it be??? Can it be that the very article that Juliann thinks debunks my assertion actually provides support for that assertion?? Only someone who is not familiar with Juliannâ??s methodology could be surprised.

IOW, for those who will not be able to parse the citation themselves, the reason that some speculate the Israelites may have not been native to Canaan is due to the fact that they dressed differently than the Canaanites. This means that archaeologists detect foreigners because of the fact that they do not abandon their former traditions.

In a previous post I already recognized that there are opposing factions in this debate. That is obvious. But the archaeologists who take different sides are using archaeological evidence to do so, and that evidence includes the recognized fact that one can recognize the presence of foreigners in a land.

Shanks refers to Dever several times in his essay, and refers to the model to which he adheres:

In any event, doubts about the peaceful infiltration model of Israelite settlement led to the development of a third model, generally known as the peasant revolt modelâ??again not a very happy moniker, for reasons we will soon see. This thirdâ??and lastâ??model was pioneered by a University of Michigan scholar named George Mendenhall in the mid-1960s. According to this model, the Israelites emerged not from outside Canaan, but from inside. In short, the Exodus from Egypt, if there was one, was minuscule. According to this theory, the people who became known as Israelites were really peasants who revolted against their urban overlords in the Late Bronze Age cities of Canaan. These peasants then fled to the hills, where under the ideological guidance of a deity called Yahweh they developed and expanded into a people called Israel.

The peasant revolt model has proved to be a very pregnant one for many scholars. For one thing, it is based on anthropological and sociological analogies from other societies in which new cultures have emerged.

Hmm, can it be that Juliann has once again taken a quote out of context and claimed it contradicted my assertion, when a close reading of the article demonstrates several points of support for my assertion? Look at the bolded statement above. Contrary to what Juliann seems to be claiming, Dever is not making this statement based on a limited study of one people in particular. It is based on anthropological and sociological analogies from other societies in which new cultures have emerged.

My primary point in referring to Dever was not to debate the origins of the ancient Israelites, but instead demonstrate that archaeologists believe they can detect the presence of foreigners in a land because those same foreigners do not abandon their former traditions (although, as I believe Fortiqurn pointed out, they will modify those traditions over time). Those who take different sides of the origins of Israel debate utilize this idea to support their theories (see the skirts above).

Juliann:

Can Beastie use Dever to support herself? Only if she doesn't tell the whole story. Can she hide this? Only if you aren't familiar with the subject matter. She has the advantage that not many are familiar with BOM scholarship. That is why it is important to see her methods in more obvious areas. More from the Shanks article that isn't saying what Beastie is trying to make us believe...in fact, it supports Brant's assertion that BOM immigrants aren't likely to be identified by their pottery or houses.

No, it doesnâ??t. Moreover, even if Juliann could manage to find an article that actually supported her contention, instead of one that supports her contention only if you strip a quote from context, this requires ignoring the Book of Mormon itself, which explicitly states that Nephi taught his people certain skills.

Again, Beastie has made an outrageous leap in trying to use early Israelite settlements at all. But she had a book and found something convenient. The time is off. The geography is off. The culture is off. The natural resources are off. But this is what she does quite consistently and then becomes combative when her flawed methodology and her over reaching is pointed out to her again and again and again and again. This is what you get. Reader beware.

See the citation above that demonstrate how fallacious this claim of Juliannâ??s is. And in regards to my â??combativenessâ?, I certainly am not going to roll over when Juliann makes her snide comments and proclaims to â??catchâ?? me when she clearly hasnâ??t. I think that, given her tendency towards snide, dismissive comments, I am fairly patient with her.

[charity]

I read the entire Shanks article. Reading only beastie's comments on it, you would hardly recognize it. Anyone who has any doubts, go to the link and read the whole thing. Don't just take m word for it.

[juliann]

Ah, Beastie has had to admit the rest of the story. She now tries to deflect attention from her deliberate omission by pretending that I left something out. I didn't say Dever wasn't part of the dispute...I said he was just a part of it. Get the difference? We can now assume that you acknowledge there are several ways that credible scholars look at your prooftexted conclusion and there is not conclusive support, or anything close, to what you claimed was the only way to look at something.

Now that you are paying attention let's observe what Shanks says...gosh...it sounds just like what Brant has said all along!

Shanks: The purpose of the biblical account is not what we regard as history. The purpose of the biblical account is to explain Godâ??s acts in relation to man on this earth. It really isnâ??t concerned about detailed accuracy; thatâ??s not its purpose. Now, there is a certain divide among people who, on the one hand regard the Bible as literally true and, on the other, those who look at it as a document like any other ancient document: It has to be analyzed and compared and looked at for its tendenz, for its biases. My friend Bill Dever, has called the Bible â??a curated artifact.â? There is a difference among people concerning how they approach the Bible. Those who accept the Bible as literally true are people who accept this on faith. I donâ??t think we can argue on that ground. Other people say that, unlike those who accept the Bible as literally true, they will argue with you on archaeological or historical grounds. And it is in this area that you can have a debate. Most modern biblical scholars do not accept the Bible as literally true. So what you have to do is to treat it almost like an archaeological tell, and excavate it, as it were, and analyze it to see whether what it says is historically true in the details, whether we would accept it as historically accurate by modern historiansâ?? standards, by modern historiography. That is not to denigrate the richness of the biblical text. I think many people who do not accept the literal reading of the Bible find it a very enriching and inspiring and even Godly document, without the necessity of it being literally true in every detail. This whole discussion proceeds on the basis that we will examine the Bible in this way. What I have tried to do is to summarize some of the problems in the biblical text and to describe some of the ways scholars have dealt with them.

And Beastie, in regards to your Bromley boondoggle, I emailed Bromley to inform him he had not been sent to the thread I was participating in and gave him the real thread. He didn't disapprove at all when he was given an opportunity to see how I summarized his position (neither did Mauss) you might want to stop pretending on that one, too. What a way to impress scholars! Please email him again and verify! And why doesn't such a dirty trick surprise me....we see the same withholding of information everyday from countermos.

So now, everyone can see for themselves the other side of the story Beastie. But you didn't tell it.

[juliann]

I read the entire Shanks article. Reading only beastie's comments on it, you would hardly recognize it. Anyone who has any doubts, go to the link and read the whole thing. Don't just take m word for it.

Shanks is, as I recall, in Dever's camp. This was an introduction...a literature review. So Beastie's attemp to hide behind him not agreeing is exceedingly desparate. That is the point...there is no agreement. That is why it is so critical to show all of the positions. And scholars do that as a matter of routine. This is what is missing from every countermopologist argument I have seen...an acknowlegement of competing positions. I have never seen this from Beastie.

[beastie]

Charity -

Of course I am not surprised that your interpretation is different than mine. You have insisted throughout this thread I am ignoring evidence of Meoamerican metallurgy during the Book of Mormon time frame, too. yet there is not one speck of evidence of that, as even Brant admits.

So yes, please, everyone go read the article. Then tell me that the archaeologists do NOT believe one can find evidence of foreigners. Nothing Juliann has quoted supports that contention, including this last attempt. Juliann, how in the world do you interpret your last citation to support your assertion that I am wrong when I state that archaeologists believe you can, and do, find evidence of foreigners? You tend to throw out quotes as if it is self-evident that they debunk me without explaining HOW they do. When asked, you normally refuse to clarify.

Regarding the Bromley incident, you have given me nothing of substance, other than your assertion, that the information Bromley read was indicative of the entire episode, or that he approved of your use of the theory. I'm not going to re-argue that, but note that unless you provided highly selective information, there is no way he could not have recognized that you were using the information he presented in an entirely different format. But, if you'd like, I can erase that example. There are plenty of others.

Shanks is, as I recall, in Dever's camp. This was an introduction...a literature review. So Beastie's attemp to hide behind him not agreeing is exceedingly desparate. That is the point...there is no agreement. That is why it is so critical to show all of the positions. And scholars do that as a matter of routine. This is what is missing from every countermopologist argument I have seen...an acknowlegement of competing positions. I have never seen this from Beastie.

This is bizarre. You're the one who provided Shanks, now you attempt to discredit him by saying that he's in Dever's camp?

Please read this next part with more than your usual care: The point is not whether or not all Biblical archaeologists agree with the posited origins of ancient Israel at all. So the fact that there are different views is irrelevant. Here's the important part: the issue is whether or not archaeologists agree that one can detect the presence of foreigners in a land by their material traditions and culture. Even those who disagree with the Dever camp are still using evidence of material traditions and culture to support their contention. (see the skirt evidence)

[Fortigurn]

I read the entire Shanks article. Reading only beastie's comments on it, you would hardly recognize it. Anyone who has any doubts, go to the link and read the whole thing. Don't just take m word for it.

On the contrary, when I read it earlier today I was going to post the same assessment as beastie. There's plenty in that article which supports her case. The article has been completely misrepresented by the Mormons here.

This is what beastie said, and I concur:

Moreover, she claims that her linked article disputes my claim that archaeologists believe that one can find archaeological evidence of a group of foreigners when it does not dispute that claim at all.

In fact, one of the evidences that Shanks uses to suggest that it is still possible that the Israelites were not native to Canaan actually supports my entire contention, and Dever’s statement: that when foreigners move to a new land, their presence can be detected archaeologically because they do not abandon their former material traditions and simply adopt, whole-cloth, the traditions of the new land.

Emphasis mine. That was certainly my assessment of the article. It makes the point very clearly that new inhabitants are identified by the new artefacts they bring to a site:

Moreover, the new settlers brought with them a new style of architecture and a peculiarly decorated storage jar.

[...]

The settlers in the hill country also had a new kind of storage jar that is called a collared-rim jar.

[...]

But you can see the picture that is emerging—new inhabitants occupying the sparsely settled hill country—just the area that the Bible says the Israelites settled in when they crossed the Jordan—and a special kind of architecture and a special style of pottery. It is very tempting to say that here we have the incoming Israelites.

But is this enough to call these people Israelites? Many scholars don’t think it is.

What's important is that he upholds the principle that new settlers can be identified by new artefacts they bring to a site.

He makes the point that these artefacts cannot be definitely identified as belonging to the Israelites, and as we've seen he also points out that some scholars believe that these artefacts are cultural variations within the encumbent population (not artefacts introduced by immigrants), but he never contradicts the princple that new settlers can be identified by the new artefacts they bring to a site.

Please read this next part with more than your usual care: The point is not whether or not all Biblical archaeologists agree with the posited origins of ancient Israel at all. So the fact that there are different views is irrelevant. Here's the important part: the issue is whether or not archaeologists agree that one can detect the presence of foreigners in a land by their material traditions and culture. Even those who disagree with the Dever camp are still using evidence of material traditions and culture to support their contention. (see the skirt evidence)

Backing vocals for beastie.

[charity]

Dr Shanks said this in the linked article, "Where did the people who became the nation of Israel come from? And when? By what process did they become a nation? What were their religious roots? How did they find their God Yahweh? Scores of scholars are struggling with these issues. Some of the disagreements are intense. Our speakers today are among the leaders in the debate. We may hear from them whether any kind of consensus is emerging.

So, beastie, if it is so easy to determine from the footprint of the society exactly where someone came from, why the struggle? Why the intense disagreements? And this in an area where the continuity of habitation is known.

[beastie]

Brant:

Overreading again. I don't think the Nephi's first settlement was that sophisticated or that large. I think it somewhat anomalous that he was called a king. There was a developing town, but it took a while to grow. Nothing suggests your "powerful polity" statement.

If a powerful polity is not required for the City of Nephi, then why do both you and Sorenson agree that Kaminaljuyu is a good fit? Moreover, as your Meridian article demonstrates, you, yourself, point out why a powerful polity is required. However, as I pointed out earlier, your article does seem somewhat self contradictory. Your clarification that youâ??re really talking about a few small hamlets donâ??t deal with the problem.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/030731fair.html

Here you seem to insinuate that the City of Nephi was nothing more than a few small hamlets joining with the Nephites.

Secondly, we have Lehi's company entering an area dominated by small hamlets and perhaps a few villages. Such conditions would favor the acceptance of their party into those small communities.If they were seen as bringing important skills, a hamlet or two might be willing to join with them, and even willing to cede leadership to the new arrivals. Larger cities, however, might see them as threats and be less likely to desire to merge with them. They would surely not be willing to give up their sovereignty in favor of the newcomers, as the text indicates for Lehi's party. The conditions along the coast of Guatemala would therefore favor both contact with existing populations, and the possibility of merger with some of those native inhabitants.

I note that you mention here that your entire premise is predicated on the fact that the Nephites brought important skills, and note that here you seem to indicate larger polities â?? which Kaminaljuyu was â?? would be threatened by them and not join them.

But to support your point that others were required, you also demonstrate why a larger polity is required:

With the addition of "others" into Nephi's party we have a larger core of people than we could possibly have with the segregation of only those who arrived with Lehi. Three events described for the early city of Nephi would appear to confirm the presence of more people than those who had come from the Old World. About thirty years after the departure from Jerusalem, Nephi describes some of the events of the establishment of the city of Nephi. First, Nephi describes having not only built dwellings, but also a temple.4 Public building projects require excess labor. Even on a modest scale, a public building takes time and resources away from daily life. The very existence of a public building suggests a larger population than the pure Old World immigrants and their natural increase.

Youâ??re between a rock and a hard place. You want to take advantage of the fact that the group constructed public buildings, because it supports your assertion the â??othersâ? must have existed. But a few small hamlets would not have been able to engage in such controlled labor, either. That is why Kaminaljuyu was notable â?? it clearly was able to engage in such labor, as it had constructed an irrigation system by 700 BC. You now state you donâ??t agree with Sorensonâ??s use of Kaminaljuyu, although elsewhere you do indicate you accept it.

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...arom/Jarom1.htm

John Sorenson has suggested the Guatemalan site of Kaminaljuyu as a candidate for the city of Nephi (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1985. P. 47). At the time period discussed by Jarom, we find some interesting correspondences to the Book of Mormon account in the archaeology of Kaminaljuyu.

"During the Middle and Late Preclassic years (600 BC to 300 AD) religious architecture got of to a good start. Temple-pyramids, which in some cases served also as burial mounds were arranged along both sides of a long rectangular plaza or avenue. Religion was the driving motivation, and all nearby peoples must have contributed heavily, in time and muscle, to the necessary labor force." (Weaver, Muriel Porter. The Aztecs, Maya, and the Predecessors. New York, Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. 1972. p. 81)

So far the picture fits with the development of the City of Nephi, with a florescence in the early time period that yet required outside help. As the city grew and prospered, it would be able to command the labor of surrounding areas, and the architectural development would witness that growth.

Weaver continues: "The glory and luxury evident at Kaminaljuyu can only signify a high degree of social stratification with wealth, power, and prestige in the hands of an elite few. The trend toward standardization of ritual material and the exclusion of certain artifacts such as figurines from the rich tombs suggests that religion was becoming formalized and rigidly patterned." (Weaver, 1972, p. 83).

This also agrees with the analysis presented of the types of social evolution Jacob was dealing with. In the codification of religion Weaver suggests for Kaminaljuyu, I would suggest that it postdates the Nephite presence there, and is rather an outgrowth of the later Lamanite possession of the site.

If youâ??re going to back away from Kaminaljuyu because it is a powerful polity, and hence the problem that I suggest exists: the powerful polities of Mesoamerica were the exact ones that strongly influenced the entire cultural evolution of the area, then youâ??re going to have to deal with the other problem: smaller polities donâ??t provide the level of social stratification needed for the BoM text to make any sort of sense.

From the meridian article

The second event that indicates the presence of a larger population is the declaration of Nephi as king.5 Small hamlets do not have kings. To name one of a dozen men "king" is an insult, not a compliment. Finally, we have the designation of Jacob and Joseph as priests and teachers "over the land of my people."6 Were we to assume only Old World peoples at this point, we have a king and two priests servicing perhaps ten households. The early Nephite political/religious structure is too top heavy for so few people. The only situation that sufficiently explains our text is the presence of non-Old World peoples at this early date.

Here is one of the contradictions â?? you assert that a larger polity would find the Nephites threatening, so they likely joined a few small hamlets. But you state here that small hamlets do not have kings. Clearly a larger polity is required to support such a top-heavy structure, as you state. And, of course, we have the levels of hierarchies we discussed earlier. There were two levels of judgeships, a method that allowed for the peaceful removal of judges and the alteration of laws, and lawyers. No small hamlet, or even a couple of small hamlets together, would support this type of structure.

We begin with Jacob's sermon on riches. Our first problem with Jacob's sermon is that he is presenting what would be an impossible situation if we assume the city of Nephi is isolated in the land. He suggests that they have become wealthy because of the gold and silver that they have found, elements that he calls abundant.8 This should be impossible. First of all, in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value. They continued to lack intrinsic value for Mesoamerican populations up to the time of the Conquest when the Spaniards rather forcibly imposed their own values for gold and silver. Secondly, it is hard to get rich from gold and silver ore. Third, it is difficult to get rich on anything that anyone can find in abundance.

Finally, we have the manifestation of this wealth in "costly apparel."9 This is another situation that should not exist. In an isolated community with no department stores, clothing is made by the community. The same materials are available to all; the same dyes are available to all. Even stylistic changes tend to be widely copied. It is quite common for villages to have an almost uniform dress rather than a segregation created by dress. Under the assumptions that are commonly brought to the Book of Mormon text, that of a group of people alone in the land, it should be virtually impossible to have "costly apparel."

The Nephite group joining with small hamlets would not result in this sort of social stratification, either. See above.

There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.

The process of trade would have brought not only esoteric goods, but also a mechanism for the very social differentiation that Jacob excoriates. This is the cultural problem behind the "costly apparel" that will become one of the hallmark themes of the competing religious ideas throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon. In Mesoamerica, the time period of the early Nephites saw developing social stratification, and an increasing pressure towards kingship in the cities of the Maya lands. This social differentiation was supported by the accumulation of esoteric goods, often displayed on the clothing of the elite. As Schele and Mathews put it, "People throughout Mesoamerica wore these currencies as jewelry and clothing to display the wealth and enterprise of their families."10 Bringing in clothing and adornments from other locations is a way to create a differentiation in dress. When the clothing itself becomes the display mode for elite consumption goods, then the costly apparel in and of itself becomes the marker of the increasing economic and social distance between developing classes. It is important to remember that Jacob's issue is never wealth, but rather the social stratification that was based on wealth. The costly apparel was a unique Mesoamerican mode of creating and displaying that social separation. The pressures for creating social stratification that we see beginning in the city of Nephi mirror the greater trend in the entire Mesoamerican cultural area at just this point in time.

This especially demonstrates why the City of Nephi had to be a powerful polity. You posit that it was some skill Nephi taught the people that resulted in the polityâ??s gaining in material power and wealth. Again, as you earlier concede, there is no skill in Mesoamerica that was not native to the area but that doesnâ??t stop you from suggesting it was Nephiâ??s teaching that gave the polity such an edge.

I simply do not understand how you can posit that a polity that gained in enough power and wealth in order to engage in enough trade to result in the social stratification and stress described in the Book of Mormon would be anything but a powerful polity at that time period.

Somehow, I seem to be consistent. Nephi had limited skills to teach. He couldn't teach them how to weave cotton. Even if there were a lot of cotton around, I doubt he knew much about it. He probably knew a lot about caring for camels, but that wasn't particularly useful. I really doubt he could throw a pot.

But you state that Nephi had some skill to teach them that they would view as valuable. Now youâ??re saying he had limited skills. And you also agree that all the skills manifested in Mesoamerica were indigenous to the region. So he had some valuable skill to share that made them want him to be their king, and yet he had limited skills and there is no trace of any skill that is not indigenous to the area? You donâ??t see the problem here?

Yes. You know we disagree. However, you also seem to forget that those discussions center around Zarahemlan and are only relevant between 500 and 600 years later than Nephi. Things had changed by then, but we still disagree on the nature of the change. Imputing Zarahemla complexity to the city of Nephi is far overreaching logic.

Not true. See your own earlier statements from your website about the Jacob sermon.

This is where a grounding in ancient literatures is helpful. There are several times where Mormon describes the lazy Lamanites. There is a cultural stereotype of the Lamanites that lasts for the entire text. However, it comes in direct conflict with the evidence of the text. How does such a thing happen? In ancient literature, it happens all of the time. At one point Mormon says that the Lamanites learned to read and write because of apostate Nephites. That is culturally and anthropologically appropriate to say. It is historically inaccurate and a historian should see that right away. Of course Nephi taught them everything. He was their king. Of course he established their culture. That is what a founder does. Reading Nephi as a history rather than as a work of ethnopoesis imposes perspective errors.

Ah, I believe this is what I anticipated, although I want to be sure youâ??re saying what I think you are saying. Are you suggesting that Nephi didnâ??t really have any special teachings to offer his people, but just included that in a self-aggrandizing way?

This is how I expected the conversation to evolve. However, then you have the problem of why did these people want Nephi to be their king? And how did a couple of small hamlets achieve the social stratification necessary to explain the Jacob sermon (see your above website quotation)

QUOTE

BTW, do you concede that the type of pottery being made in Mesoamerica also indicates that Mesoamericans did not possess the heat-controlling technology that would allow them to make the type of pottery that is manifested later, when metallurgy was ALSO being demonstrated?

Of course not. That is why I asked you to show the pottery changing when the pyro-technology was adopted. They two are not as correlated as you make them out to be.

Please share citations and references that support your stance and hence contradict Bruhnâ??s.

That is difficult to demonstrate because it presupposes that the ability to make objects created the trade value. That is, of course, what I suggest for Nephi. We don't disagree that there is no clear evidence at that point in time, however, it isn't unusual for a text to disagree with the currently discovered artifacts. One discovery changes a lot. See San Bartolo's revision of the nature of what "Classic" meant.

You can continue to hope that new discoveries will validate the BoM claims. If and when that happens, I suspect that you will no longer encourage people to focus on finding Mesoamerica in the BoM instead of vice versa.

Depends on the size and the duration. There were foreign barrios in Teotihuacan. There is little evidence of Chicimec material culture. The Aztecs were late-comers to Mesoamerica and their language is related to Southwest US groups. Nevertheless, they were rather completely Mesoamericanized. Their material culture was Mesoamerican and the largest amount of their religion was Mesoamerican. We can trace the differences only because there is so much available information recorded after the conquest. Without that, we would be unable to say that the Aztecs had ever been anything but Mesoamerican.

Iâ??ll come back to this point later.

If you found where they lived. If you dug in the right place and deep enough. If the technology persisted. If. I have seen a little more indication of some early traces of metal, but as I told you before, I am not all that interested. I have other things occupying my time and that isn't one I am spending my efforts on.

But you do know enough about it to contest that Bruhns is incorrect. Please share that information.

Aside from that, you indicated that the TRADE of these items produced by a group that kept the technique secret helped create the social stratification described in the BoM. So even if one could not locate the exact spot where the items were produced, the evidence of these items dispersed through trade should be available.

[beastie]

Dr Shanks said this in the linked article, "Where did the people who became the nation of Israel come from? And when? By what process did they become a nation? What were their religious roots? How did they find their God Yahweh? Scores of scholars are struggling with these issues. Some of the disagreements are intense. Our speakers today are among the leaders in the debate. We may hear from them whether any kind of consensus is emerging.

So, beastie, if it is so easy to determine from the footprint of the society exactly where someone came from, why the struggle? Why the intense disagreements? And this in an area where the continuity of habitation is known.

There is no disagreement on the point we are discussing: that it is possible to detect the presence of foreigners in a land because they retain their former material traditions.

I already demonstrated this in my previous reply. If the archaeologists did NOT believe one could detect foreigner from their material traditions, then why would they use the "skirts" example to provide possible information that could contradict Dever's position?

Please note in my previous reply that what is being discussed isn't the origins of ancient Israel, but whether or not archaeologists agree one can detect the presence of foreigners in a land by their material traditions.

[Fortigurn]

Dr Shanks said this in the linked article, "Where did the people who became the nation of Israel come from? And when? By what process did they become a nation? What were their religious roots? How did they find their God Yahweh? Scores of scholars are struggling with these issues. Some of the disagreements are intense. Our speakers today are among the leaders in the debate. We may hear from them whether any kind of consensus is emerging.

So, beastie, if it is so easy to determine from the footprint of the society exactly where someone came from, why the struggle? Why the intense disagreements? And this in an area where the continuity of habitation is known.

Because of the paucity of archaeological evidence for Israelite habitation. It is easy to determine from the footprint of the society, where they came from. But if that footprint doesn't exist any more, or is only present in a barely discernable outline, then the task becomes next to impossible.

[charity]

Actually, beastie, one of the alternte theories in the Shanks article says that the Israelites were a part of the population already. The peasant revolution thing. They didn't come from anywhere else.

[beastie]

Actually, beastie, one of the alternte theories in the Shanks article says that the Israelites were a part of the population already. The peasant revolution thing. They didn't come from anywhere else.

!!!?????!!!!!!

I know that. I'm not sure how you have concluded, after all this conversation, that I didn't. My point has been that the archaeologists who made that determination did so because of the lack of evidence of a foreign element in the specified time and place.

Are you really reading my posts?

[charity]

And you didn't get from the Shanks article that archeology doesn't have all the answers? I thought you had probably missed that part.

[Fortigurn]

And you didn't get from the Shanks article that archeology doesn't have all the answers? I thought you had probably missed that part.

And you didn't get from the Shankes article that archaeology doesn't have all the answers because it doesn't have all the evidence? I thought you had probably missed that part.

[charity]

And you didn't get from the Shankes article that archaeology doesn't have all the answers because it doesn't have all the evidence? I thought you had probably missed that part.

fortigurn, thank you many times over. The first time I have heard a critic say that the reason there is no archeological support for Nephites in the New World is that they don't have all the evidence. You get a gold star. Of course, you will probably get hit with rocks by other critics.

[Fortigurn]

fortigurn, thank you many times over. The first time I have heard a critic say that the reason there is no archeological support for Nephites in the New World is that they don't have all the evidence.

That is not what I said. I was speaking of the archaeological situation in the Ancient Near East. The reason why archaeologists say there is no archaeological support for Nephites in the New World is not because they don't have all the evidence, but because they have an abundance of evidence, none of which reveals the presence of Nephites and much of which contradicts the claims the Book of Mormon makes about New World communites.

[charity]

That is not what I said. I was speaking of the archaeological situation in the Ancient Near East. The reason why archaeologists say there is no archaeological support for Nephites in the New World is not because they don't have all the evidence, but because they have an abundance of evidence, none of which reveals the presence of Nephites and much of which contradicts the claims the Book of Mormon makes about New World communites.

And you are saying that the state of archeological exploration in the New World is far advanced beyond what has been done in the Old World?

Back up all you want, but that doesn't wash.

[Fortigurn]

And you are saying that the state of archeological exploration in the New World is far advanced beyond what has been done in the Old World?

I don't know if it's more or less advanced than what has been done in the Old World. What I do know is that there has been so much done that archaeologists have an abundance of evidence, none of which reveals the presence of Nephites and much of which contradicts the claims the Book of Mormon makes about New World communites.

None of the reputable non-Mormon archaeologists are looking for Nephites, hoping to find them because they're certain that there's evidence that they just haven't found. The situation with the Ancient Near East is the exact opposite.

[juliann]

Beastie: You're the one who provided Shanks, now you attempt to discredit him by saying that he's in Dever's camp?

Why would noting who adheres to which school of thought discredit anyone? Too much information for you? Am I disclosing too much? Good grief. Right on schedule...everybody sing in tune! "hoppin' down the bunny trail...hippity hop..."

Please read this next part with more than your usual care: The point is not whether or not all Biblical archaeologists agree with the posited origins of ancient Israel at all. So the fact that there are different views is irrelevant. Here's the important part: the issue is whether or not archaeologists agree that one can detect the presence of foreigners in a land by their material traditions and culture. Even those who disagree with the Dever camp are still using evidence of material traditions and culture to support their contention. (see the skirt evidence)

Hippity hop. The issue is how you play with information by drawing conclusions based on limited information that hides the fact your favorite sources are only one side of a complicated problem. I'm not confused with what you try to do. I doubt anyone else is, either. But don't let that stop you from trying to pretend this is all about something other than your prooftexting and over reaching methodology. Let's all go back to Finkelstein! How many more scholars do you need, Beastie?

http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/0...UserID=3d0&

Let us now look at the extent to which the material culture of these Israelite settlements relates to Canaanite material culture of the Late Bronze Age. Scholarly opinion on this matter is divided. According to the most widely accepted view, there was a sharp contrast or break between the Late Bronze Canaanite material culture and Iron I Israelite material culture. More recently, however, points of contact and continuity have been highlighted, especially with respect to pottery.7 Naturally, this has given considerable weight to the arguments of adherents of the Mendenhall-Gottwald school.

Despite this continuity, which might suggest that the Israelites emerged from within Canaan, there are a number of counterbalancing facts that must not be overlooked. No total cultural break should be expected even if new groups of people entered the area. The material culture of the new group would soon be influenced by the material culture prevailing in that area, and thus a seeming link to the previous period would be forged.

I put the important part in red for ya. By golly...that sounds just..like....Brant! Again. Does all of this matter when it comes to the topic? No, it merely shows the reader how Beastie twists information to fit the conclusion she started with. Can her mistake be more clear? She has made two. She needs us to believe that newcomers will always be visible through what they leave behind. OK. She then makes the mistake of hauling in another area from another time and place to support a conclusion based on limited information. Then she tries to do damage control by pretending we were really talking about something else. This began with the obvious...a group of immigrants may or may not be detectable depending on how much assimilation there is with the prevailing culture. It was your call to bring in biblical scholarship, Beastie. We can all see it for ourselves so your carefully culled prooftexts aren't helping you...they only demonstrate how much you are willing to hide. You do this consistently regardless of the topic.

edited for reformating

[charity]

I don't know if it's more or less advanced than what has been done in the Old World. What I do know is that there has been so much done that archaeologists have an abundance of evidence, none of which reveals the presence of Nephites and much of which contradicts the claims the Book of Mormon makes about New World communites.

None of the reputable non-Mormon archaeologists are looking for Nephites, hoping to find them because they're certain that there's evidence that they just haven't found. The situation with the Ancient Near East is the exact opposite.

The corner is getting smaller. Ask any archeologist if he has an "abudance" of evidence. Any reputable archeologist will tell you he/she hasn't nearly enough and wants to fund another dig.

You claimed that "much" of the abundance of evidence contradicts the claims of the Book of Mormon. Source and references on that, please. This is a board rule. When you make a statement you must be willing to back it up.

Do you really expect us to take the fact that non-Mormon archeologists are not looking for Nephites as a reasonable argument? Tee hee. I take it you didn't mean that non-Mormon archeologists are looking for Nephites in the Anciest Near East, but it isn't clear from your statement exactly what you did mean.

[beastie]

In order to trace the roots of a specific group like the Israelitesâ??regardless of the time frame or geographic location involvedâ??three avenues of inquiry should be pursued:

1. Historical sources, to the extent that they exist.

2. The material culture of the group, including indications of its socio-economic character and its relationship to the material culture of the preceding period.

3. The settlement pattern of the period in question compared to the previous period (and sometimes the succeeding period as well).

Let us turn then to the other two categories: material culture and settlement patterns.

Both of these factors strongly suggest that the people settling in the hill country in Iron I, or at least most of them, came from a pastoralist background. As for the material culture, the only conclusive evidence comes from the layout of the Iron I sites: The elliptical site plan, where a series of broadrooms encompassed a large central courtyard, was adapted from the nomadic tent camp. Although not conclusive, the proliferation of storage silos dug into the ground at Israelite settlement sites is also characteristic of a formerly nomadic society in the process of sedentarization. This phenomenon can be observed today in the settlements of newly sedentarized Bedouin in the Negev and in the Judean Desert, where the first structures they erect are for the storage of grain and straw. Silage is the first problem for which such societies must find a permanent architectural solution.6

Another indication: Looking at the settlement pattern, it is quite clear that the Israelite settlement was densest in regions suitable for cereal crops and pasturage, and that it was relatively sparse in areas appropriate for horticulture (such as grapes or olives, which take longer to mature) and mixed agriculture.

Let us now look at the extent to which the material culture of these Israelite settlements relates to Canaanite material culture of the Late Bronze Age. Scholarly opinion on this matter is divided. According to the most widely accepted view, there was a sharp contrast or break between the Late Bronze Canaanite material culture and Iron I Israelite material culture. More recently, however, points of contact and continuity have been highlighted, especially with respect to pottery.7 Naturally, this has given considerable weight to the arguments of adherents of the Mendenhall-Gottwald school.

Despite this continuity, which might suggest that the Israelites emerged from within Canaan, there are a number of counterbalancing facts that must not be overlooked. No total cultural break should be expected even if new groups of people entered the area. The material culture of the new group would soon be influenced by the material culture prevailing in that area, and thus a seeming link to the previous period would be forged.

More context from Juliannâ??s newest article that supposedly disproves my assertion that archaeologists can detect foreigners from their material traditions.

It is quite clear that Finkelstein considers material cultural artifacts to be a crucial point in determining the origin of a group. I bolded some parts that demonstrate continual attention to this factor. Moreover, nowhere does Finkelstein claim that one would not be able to identify the presence of foreigners because they immediately abandoned their former tradition. He stated that no TOTAL cultural break should be expected. There is a significant difference between the two assertions.

Each article you cite continues to cite the importance of looking for material artifacts to detect a foreign presence, Juliann. Iâ??m not sure what advantage you think this is giving you.

[Fortigurn]

Ask any archeologist if he has an "abudance" of evidence. Any reputable archeologist will tell you he/she hasn't nearly enough and wants to fund another dig.

Wanting funds for another dig is not the same as saying 'There is as yet insufficient evidence from which to draw firm conclusions regarding this site/area'. If I ask any Meso-American archaeologists if there is sufficient evidence from which to draw firm conclusions regarding Meso-America, they will answer 'Absolutely'.

You claimed that "much" of the abundance of evidence contradicts the claims of the Book of Mormon. Source and references on that, please. This is a board rule. When you make a statement you must be willing to back it up.

This thread is full of it.

Do you really expect us to take the fact that non-Mormon archeologists are not looking for Nephites as a reasonable argument?

I expect you to understand that non-Mormon archaeologists are not looking for Nephites in the New World because there is no evidence that they were ever there, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[juliann]

Again, Beastie's customary binary, black and white thinking. This is why she can't extract relevant information from texts. No one is arguing against foreigners can be detected. Nice try....just keep pretending that there is nothing more has ever been said. I didn't see the quote that says continuity is not always disrupted..and I'm sure Finkelstein is just as mixed up as Brant, right? Whatever you do...don't acknowledge anything that weakens the conclusion you started with!