Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[beastie]

I shared these quotes on an earlier thread:

quotes from Kenneth Federâ??s Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, fourth edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002

Is it possible to detect, via archaeology, the presence of a foreign immigrant group in an ancient culture?

To set the background for the answer to this question, it would be helpful to understand how Feder approaches the topic of obtaining reliable information about the past.

There are ways to knowledge that are both dependable and reliable. We might not be able to absolute truths about the meaning of existence, but we can figure out quite a bit about our world â?? about chemistry and biology, psychology and sociology, physics and history, and even prehistory. The techniques used to get at knowledge we can feel confident in â?? knowledge that is reliable, truthful, and factual â?? are referred to as science.

In large part, science is a series of techniques used to maximize the probability that what we think we know really reflects the way things are, were, or will be. Science makes no claim to have all the answers or even to be right all of the time. On the contrary, during the process of the growth of knowledge and understanding, science is often wrong. Remember that even as seemingly fundamental a fact as the height of the tallest mountain on earth is subject to reassessment and correction. The only claim that we do make in science is that if we honestly, consistently, and vigorously pursue knowledge using some basic techniques and principles, the truth will eventually surface and we can truly know things about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves. (p 21)

Whether we are physicists, biologists, or archaeologists, we all work from four underlying principles. These principles are quite straightforward, but equally quite crucial.

1. There is a real and knowable universe.

2. The universe (which includes stars, planets, animals, and rocks, as well as people, their cultures, and their histories) operates according to certain understandable rules or laws.

3. These laws are immutable- that means they do not, in general, change depending on where you are or â??whenâ? you are.

4. These laws can be discerned, studied, and understood by people through careful observation, experimentation, and research. (p23)

Having established the justification for his approach, Feder tackles several claims made connected to archaeology and anthropology. One of these is the numerous claims of foreign contact prior to Columbus in the New World. Some of these claims are supported by archaeology, others are only supported by pseudo archaeology. This is pertinent to our current discussion of what it is reasonable expectations for archaeology in regards to finding evidence supporting the intrusion of a foreign group, even a small group, into a new culture.

The list of proposed pre-Columbian explorers of the New World is long, and there is no reason to presume that such voyages of exploration were impossible. Some writers have gone so far to suggest that many European, Asian, and African groups regularly visited the Americas, settled here, and had commerce with the Indians long before Columbus. The burden of proof, however, must be on those who support such hypotheses. (p 106)

Feder proceeds to talk about the Paine site, a very small site, about 538 sq ft. He says:

We found no great archaeological treasures at the Paine site, just the common debris of a small group of people who stopped at this spot for a short period of time more than one thousand years ago. The entire archaeological assemblage consisted of a handful of spent stone tools, a few hundred tiny flakes of stone struck off of other stone tools to sharpen their edges, a couple hundred fragments of what is almost certainly a single, broken clay pot, a combined total of about 100 grams of charcoal, and about a half-dozen fragments of burned bone.

A handful of people, doing little more than overnighting, sharpening their tools, having a campfire, eating â?? and breaking a pot. This is what we know happened at the Paine site. Yet even this small, ephemeral camp has left an indelible mark on the archaeological landscape. Archaeologists should expect no less from the places where large numbers of foreigners who brought their â??alienâ? technologies with them are supposed to have explored and even colonized long before Columbus, long before the Norse. (p107)

While â??large numbersâ? is an open term, he provides examples of remnants left from groups no larger than the Lehite group. Moreover, according to the BoM, there were three different incursions of Israelites into the New World (Mesoamerica, according to LGT). And, of course, Nephi taught his people skills.

In a sense, then, archaeological sites are like fossils. The sites produced by different cultures are distinguishable much in the way that the fossils of different animal species are. When members of a foreign group enter into a new territory, they bring elements of their material culture with them. The sudden, intrusive appearance of their own unique brand of â??stuffâ? is precisely the way archaeologists detect the presence of such intruders in the territories of other people. This holds true for all the people we know came to the New World, including Columbus.

He gives several examples of evidence that various foreign intruders to the New World left behind. He states that â??Even without extensive documentary evidence, archaeologists would surely recognize the presence of European foreigners in the Caribbean in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century.â? (p 109)

He also states:

Remember our discussion earlier in this chapter of our human proclivity to bring along some of what George Carlin calls our â??stuffâ? wherever we travel and our habit of losing and discarding some of that stuff along the way? There is no reason to believe ancient visitors to the New World would have been any different. With that in mind, it must be reported that in none of those 200,000 or so test pits excavated in New England did any archaeologist report the discovery of even a single artifact attributable to the ancient Welsh, Chinese, Celts, Africans, or other non-Native American group and dating to the dim mists of antiquity. We have found none of the stuff that they would have brought along on their voyage. This alone is strong evidence that these groups were not here before Columbus. (p133)

At the end of this chapter, Feder, point blank, answers a question highly pertinent to the BoM question.

Are there any examples of group of foreigners moving through a territory and leaving little or no archaeological evidence?

Certainly, a small group of people moving relatively quickly through an area may leave evidence that is difficult, though not impossible, to detect. An excellent example of this is the twenty-eight â??month expeditionary force of Merriwether Lewis and William Clark through the American West in 1803-1806. There were just thirty-three members of this well-known expeditionary force. They were constantly on the move and rarely stayed more than a single night at the more than six hundred places where they made camp. Nevertheless, archaeologist Ken Karsmizki has identified at least four sites that may represent the explorersâ?? camps. Artifacts have been found, and fireplaces have been excavated and radiocarbon-dated to the right time period. The lesson here is that the archaeological visibility of the presence of an alien group in a region depends on the number of foreigners and the duration of their stay at any one place. Archaeologists must admit that it may be quite difficult to document the presence of a very small, very mobile group, but the evidence of the Lewis and Clark expedition indicates that careful research ultimately reveals such evidence. (p146)

There were three excursions into the New World from the Hebraic Old World, according to the BoM. Each time these groups would have, like any other group of human beings, brought their stuff with them. So the question isnâ??t â??what would a Nephite pot look likeâ?, but rather â??what would a 600 BC Jerusalem pot look like?â? No matter how quickly the Nephites adopted the material cultures of the natives (odd that they would do so, anyway, given they were so ethnocentrically prejudiced against these natives they didnâ??t even mention their existence in the text, despite the magnificent conversionary event that must have been), they were still foreigners who brought their own stuff, and, for at least a while, continued to follow the old ways. And at least one of those excursions resulted in the Nephite rule of a significant city â?? Kaminaljuyu. According to Demarest, in Ancient Maya, p 72,

From this rich interaction of culture groups in the Middle to Late Preclassic coast and highlands emerged the highland Maya art and ceramic styles best known from the great site of Kaminaljuyu. This important center is covered today by the suburbs of modern Guatemala City, and its burial mounds, temple mounds, monuments, and dwellings have been systematically excavated or inadvertently discovered for a century.

Yet not one single artifact or skill that originated from the Old World.

[Fortigurn]

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.

Beastie has not been claiming your argument is 'No foreigners can be detected'. She has been arguing - accurately and successfully - against the claim 'New immigrant populations cannot reliably be detected on the basis of the cultural artefacts they bring from their previous culture'.

[charity]

"There were just thirty-three members of this well-known expeditionary force. They were constantly on the move and rarely stayed more than a single night at the more than six hundred places where they made camp. Nevertheless, archaeologist Ken Karsmizki has identified at least four sites that may represent the explorersâ?? camps. Artifacts have been found, and fireplaces have been excavated and radiocarbon-dated to the right time period. The lesson here is that the archaeological visibility of the presence of an alien group in a region depends on the number of foreigners and the duration of their stay at any one place. Archaeologists must admit that it may be quite difficult to document the presence of a very small, very mobile group, but the evidence of the Lewis and Clark expedition indicates that careful research ultimately reveals such evidence. (p146)"

This is funny. Being somewhat more of a student of early exploration of the West than I am of meso-American exploration and settlement, I would like to call something to your attention. Do you know why they could find 4 sites? Because they followed the map. The Lewis and Clark expedition had a cartographer with them who carefully detailed and recorded where they were. Even knowing exaclty where they went, they only found 4 sites out of 600. That doesn't sound like much of a track record.

Can anybody here see how beastie can think this is a significant parallel?

[beastie]

Brant -

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.

Certainly it depends on the size and duration. This is why the fact that Nephi taught his people skills is so imperative in this conversation. His people clearly must involve the â??othersâ? who voted Nephi king. You state now that Kaminaljuyu may be too big to fit the City of Nephi, but it has to be a fairly sizable polity to have the social stratification and the ability to build public buildings as the BoM describes.

So letâ??s take a look at some of Nephiâ??s demonstrated skills:

He knew how to make a (steel) bow and arrow and successfully hunt with it. (1 Nephi 16:23-31)

He knew how to construct a ship. (1 N 17:8, also ch 18)

He knew how to find ore and molten it. (1 N 17:9)

He knew how to make metal tools from that ore (ibid)

He knew how to make and use bellows in order to create the type of controlled heat to make ore into tools. (1 N 17:9-11, 16)

He knew how to grow crops that â??grew exceedinglyâ? in the New World and successfully raise â??flocks, herds, and animals of every kindâ? (1 N 19:24, 2 N 5:11)

He knew how to make many swords like Labanâ??s (2 N 5:14)

He knew how to build buildings, work with wood and the metals/ores that were in â??abundanceâ? (2 N 5:15)

He knew how to construct a public building like a temple, which is predicated on an available labor pool and the ability to direct and control that labor pool (2 N 5:16)

There are also things to which Nephi had been exposed in Israel, such as the use of the wheel and axle to expedite transportation, that provided more background new skills to share.

"There were just thirty-three members of this well-known expeditionary force. They were constantly on the move and rarely stayed more than a single night at the more than six hundred places where they made camp. Nevertheless, archaeologist Ken Karsmizki has identified at least four sites that may represent the explorersâ?? camps. Artifacts have been found, and fireplaces have been excavated and radiocarbon-dated to the right time period. The lesson here is that the archaeological visibility of the presence of an alien group in a region depends on the number of foreigners and the duration of their stay at any one place. Archaeologists must admit that it may be quite difficult to document the presence of a very small, very mobile group, but the evidence of the Lewis and Clark expedition indicates that careful research ultimately reveals such evidence. (p146)"

This is funny. Being somewhat more of a student of early exploration of the West than I am of meso-American exploration and settlement, I would like to call something to your attention. Do you know why they could find 4 sites? Because they followed the map. The Lewis and Clark expedition had a cartographer with them who carefully detailed and recorded where they were. Even knowing exaclty where they went, they only found 4 sites out of 600. That doesn't sound like much of a track record.

Can anybody here see how beastie can think this is a significant parallel?

Just looking at that one quote, taken out of context from the others, no, it would not be significant.

Context.

[Fortigurn]

"There were just thirty-three members of this well-known expeditionary force. They were constantly on the move and rarely stayed more than a single night at the more than six hundred places where they made camp. Nevertheless, archaeologist Ken Karsmizki has identified at least four sites that may represent the explorersâ?? camps. Artifacts have been found, and fireplaces have been excavated and radiocarbon-dated to the right time period. The lesson here is that the archaeological visibility of the presence of an alien group in a region depends on the number of foreigners and the duration of their stay at any one place. Archaeologists must admit that it may be quite difficult to document the presence of a very small, very mobile group, but the evidence of the Lewis and Clark expedition indicates that careful research ultimately reveals such evidence. (p146)"

This is funny. Being somewhat more of a student of early exploration of the West than I am of meso-American exploration and settlement, I would like to call something to your attention. Do you know why they could find 4 sites? Because they followed the map. The Lewis and Clark expedition had a cartographer with them who carefully detailed and recorded where they were. Even knowing exaclty where they went, they only found 4 sites out of 600. That doesn't sound like much of a track record.

Can anybody here see how beastie can think this is a significant parallel?

You have missed the point. If the artefacts had not been there, they wouldn't have been able to detect the presence of this group anywhere out of the six hundred places they made camp, regardless of the map. But that aside, I didn't see anything in what was quoted which says that they identified the campsites by using a map.

You haven't dealt with the other examples either.

[charity]

You guys were the ones who held this up as an example of how even a fast moving group will leave artifacts around, with the implication that it ought to be easy enough to find sites and artifacts of a settled group. So, show me the detailed map with co-ordinates that we can follow to look for Nephite sites.

Never mind. It wouldn't help. Even when sites are found (Old World Arabian Penninsula sites) critics turn themselves into pretzels not to accept them. Both beastie and fortigurn suggested that the archeologists didn't use the existing maps to locate the Lewis and Clark sites. That is a clear insult to their intelligence. A map exists, but they don't use them?

[beastie]

Charity -

I said nothing about the use or non-use of a map. I stated that you took one example out of my entire post which contained many statements and pretended that instance alone was THE point.

But you are pretending that the Nephites were only the biological Israelites. See my above BoM references that demonstrate all the skills Nephi could have taught his people, which included some polity large enough to experience social stratification and the construction of public buildings. That is a far cry from a small group on the move.

[juliann]

Beastie has not been claiming your argument is 'No foreigners can be detected'. She has been arguing - accurately and successfully - against the claim 'New immigrant populations cannot reliably be detected on the basis of the cultural artefacts they bring from their previous culture'.

Yeah...that is real successful to bring in bibical scholarship when biblical scholars directly contradict that. Now keep those fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalalalala real loud.....

[juliann]

He gives several examples of evidence that various foreign intruders to the New World left behind. He states that â??Even without extensive documentary evidence, archaeologists would surely recognize the presence of European foreigners in the Caribbean in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century.â? (p 109)

Awesome! Fast forward! Now you have covered how many thousands of years in your relentless search for someone...anyone...who will hide the fact that there is not scholarly agreement on the very core that supports the conclusion you started with. Unbelievable. Literally.

[beastie]

Awesome! Fast forward! Now you have covered how many thousands of years in your relentless search for someone...anyone...who will hide the fact that there is not scholarly agreement on the very core that supports the conclusion you started with. Unbelievable. Literally.

Every single archaeologist I've cited, and the ones that YOU have cited as well, attempt to identify the presence of foreigners through their material traditions. It is unbelievable that you do not recognize this.

I trust that interested readers and lurkers may have gotten the point. I never deluded myself that you would.

[Fortigurn]

Both beastie and fortigurn suggested that the archeologists didn't use the existing maps to locate the Lewis and Clark sites.

Neither of us has said any such thing. You claimed they used the map. I pointed out that nothing in what beastie quoted said they used the map. I also pointed out why it would be irrelevant if they had.

Yeah...that is real successful to bring in bibical scholarship when biblical scholars directly contradict that.

No evidence has been provided that 'biblical scholars directly contradict that'. Much evidence to the contrary has been provided.

Awesome! Fast forward! Now you have covered how many thousands of years in your relentless search for someone...anyone...who will hide the fact that there is not scholarly agreement on the very core that supports the conclusion you started with. Unbelievable. Literally.

This is completely untrue. No facts are being hidden. Beastie's argument has always been against the claim 'New immigrant populations cannot reliably be detected on the basis of the cultural artefacts they bring from their previous culture'.

No evidence has been provided that this is not a matter of scholarly agreement. Evidence demonstrating that this is a matter of scholarly agreement has been provided.

[charity]

beastie, you can think of me as an AD poster. Your posts are so long and convoluted, I generally pick out one point to reply to. Especially when one stands out so blatantly. I think you have been traumatized by the drubbing that critics take for using ellipses. So you plastered us with this Lewis and Clark example about how easy it was to find sites, even under very difficult conditions of small group, fast moving, etc. and hoped we would not see the problem with how the archeologists had so much going for them, and were still able to find only .67% of the sites.

[beastie]

beastie, you can think of me as an AD poster. Your posts are so long and convoluted, I generally pick out one point to reply to. Especially when one stands out so blatantly. I think you have been traumatized by the drubbing that critics take for using ellipses. So you plastered us with this Lewis and Clark example about how easy it was to find sites, even under very difficult conditions of small group, fast moving, etc. and hoped we would not see the problem with how the archeologists had so much going for them, and were still able to find only .67% of the sites.

I mean no offense, but since you stated this yourself, it explains a lot of your misunderstandings of my statements.

BTW, the quotation that you refer to explicitly stated that it is DIFFICULT, though not impossible, to findevidence of a small group moving quickly. I hope you find it somewhat interesting that, in your mind, you altered that statement to the complete opposite.

[Fortigurn]

so you plastered us with this Lewis and Clark example about how easy it was to find sites, even under very difficult conditions of small group, fast moving, etc. and hoped we would not see the problem with how the archeologists had so much going for them, and were still able to find only .67% of the sites.

On the contrary, the article quoted makes it clear that the archaeologists had very little going for them, and they were still able to find some of the sites.

[charity]

I am pretty tired of this.

beastie, The article said that small, fast moving, etc. made it difficult. However, do you deny that your intent in posting it was to show that even with the difficulties, archeologists were able to locate sites, while a larger, settled group (by implication without said difficulties) should be easier to locate. And since they hadn't. . . well. . . .

And fortigurn: Very little going for them?

1. They knew exactly what they were looking for, a camp site with fire pit, etc.

2. They knew exactly the time, day, month and year, that the site was established.

3. They knew exaclty where the place was latitude and longitude.

4. They knew exactly the description of the spot from detailed journals.

If archeologists weren't such a principled lot, I can see how one might be tempted to kill for such information about a potential dig.

[Fortigurn]

And fortigurn: Very little going for them?

1. They knew exactly what they were looking for, a camp site with fire pit, etc.

Yes, this supports beastie's argument.

2. They knew exactly the time, day, month and year, that the site was established.

3. They knew exaclty where the place was latitude and longitude.

4. They knew exactly the description of the spot from detailed journals.

There's no indication in what was quoted that they had, or used, any of this information. But I've already explained why it's irrelevant:

* The prospect of finding evidence of a tiny group which had stayed there so briefly, so long after the fact, was minimal

* They were able to identify campsites as belonging to the explorers (as opposed to other groups), by virtue of the cultural evidence they left

That second point is the one you have been attempting to deny is possible.

[beastie]

Charity,

My intent in sharing that was what my intent has been throughout this thread - to demonstrate that archaeologists try to detect the presence of foreigners BY finding evidence of their material remains. Even Juliann's articles demonstrate that point. The reason the material remains help them know foreigners were there is because of the differences between the foreigners' remains and the larger group. (and please don't distort this to mean TOTAL disparity)

It is more difficult to do with a small group, though not impossible. But we're not even talking about a small insignificant group with the BoM due to the fact that Nephi became king over a polity of significant enough size to warrant having a king, have social stratification, and construct public buildings.

I think we're at an impasse. If Brant arrives to offer more insight, then I'll jump back in, but if charity and juliann just continue with what they've done the last few pages, I'll let them have the last word, no matter how illogical that last word may end up being. Hopefully I've provided enough information to give interested readers some clues.

[juliann]

Charity,

My intent in sharing that was what my intent has been throughout this thread - to demonstrate that archaeologists try to detect the presence of foreigners BY finding evidence of their material remains. Even Juliann's articles demonstrate that point.

And Beastie will go down fighting as she insists that is the point. Of course "Juliann's articles" demonstrate that. That was never an issue, it is just a convenient strawman for you. What the scholars have said (and remember that you brought them in) is that it is not always possible to detect their presence no matter how hard they "try". Just as Brant said. Gosh...that has only been pointed out to you how many times now?

The reason the material remains help them know foreigners were there is because of the differences between the foreigners' remains and the larger group. (and please don't distort this to mean TOTAL disparity)

And sometimes there is no meaningful difference. Just like Brant and biblical scholars have said. Yet Beastie cannot bring herself to even acknowledge that some credible scholars don't support her conclusion even when some scholars do. It is not enough for her that only some do. She will deny it no matter how many plain as day quotes are provided. In Beastie's world, it is all or nothing, black or white, true or false. No deviation allowed let alone acknowledged. It is beyond weird.

Hopefully I've provided enough information to give interested readers some clues.

You have. Your refusal to allow a dialogue that accounts for all schools of thought is noted.

[Fortigurn]

And Beastie will go down fighting as she insists that is the point. Of course "Juliann's articles" demonstrate that. That was never an issue, it is just a convenient strawman for you.

On the contrary, it was declared repeatedly that this point was false. Efforts were made to quote from articles specifically in an attempt to falsify this point.

What the scholars have said (and remember that you brought them in) is that it is not always possible to detect their presence no matter how hard they "try". Just as Brant said. Gosh...that has only been pointed out to you how many times now?

What they have said is that where it is not possible to detect the presence of new immigrants no matter how hard they try, then there were very probably never any new immigrants there. Dever made that point forcibly.

Remember, you cannot assert the presence of new immigrants to a location with no evidence whatever that new immigrants came to that location. I haven't seen a list of scholars saying 'Well even without any evidence that Population X migrated to and settled in this already inhabited area, we know that they were there, even though there is absolutely no trace of them there whatsoever'.

[charity]

beastie, your understanding is limited by your preconceptions. You hear the word "king" and you think King of England, or King Solomon. You don't think of a king such as Benjamin who worked to support himself, and who could gather his whole kingdom in such a small space as most of them could hear his voice, without amplification equipment. Your continued use of "polity" with those grandiose ideas makes your conclusions of much less value than you think.

[charity]

Yes, this supports beastie's argument.

There's no indication in what was quoted that they had, or used, any of this information. But I've already explained why it's irrelevant:

* The prospect of finding evidence of a tiny group which had stayed there so briefly, so long after the fact, was minimal

* They were able to identify campsites as belonging to the explorers (as opposed to other groups), by virtue of the cultural evidence they left

That second point is the one you have been attempting to deny is possible.

fortigurn, I am going to try one more time.

Here is just one googled source: "Ken Karsmizki of the Columbia Gorge Discovery Center, has been working on a joint venture with NASA and other agencies on a remote sensing project using satellite and aerial imagery comparing Lewis and Clark maps to find camp sites along the Lewis and Clark trail."

Now as to your second point, which you think I am denying is possible. I have never said it wasn't possible. You read that into my posts. But before you can identify a site, you have to find it. What you and beastie have been saying is that it ought to be easy to identify traces of the Lehite group. After all, they found Lewis and Clark sites and identified them as such. You focused, because you wanted to, on how archeologists could identify groups.

I am focusing, because I want to, on how difficult it is to find sites, even when you know where they are. Tell me which non-Mormon scholar has a map to a Nephite site, has located it with a NASA satellite and then failed to identify it as Nephite? That is the task you set up.

[juliann]

What they have said is that where it is not possible to detect the presence of new immigrants no matter how hard they try, then there were very probably never any new immigrants there. Dever made that point forcibly.

LOL. I'll put the important words in red for you. Remeber, this is from Shanks who probably shares Dever's views. And yet he can still talk about other points of view! He sees no need to deny they exist. He would be a laughingstock if he did, you see.

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.

Do you see where he said new inhabitants? That means they detected them! They detected them yet many scholars can't distinguish them from the existing population based on what they left behind. Yet you are saying that is not possible. Why would you say that? Do you think it makes you appear credible? Do you think it makes you appear open and forthcoming to deny it when admitting it does not mean that those "many scholars" are every scholar? Do you think it makes you appear reasonable and trustworthy when you won't admit that all scholars don't back Beastie when it is right in front of your face in writing?

[juliann]

I am focusing, because I want to, on how difficult it is to find sites, even when you know where they are. Tell me which non-Mormon scholar has a map to a Nephite site, has located it with a NASA satellite and then failed to identify it as Nephite? That is the task you set up.

This is an appropriate question and one that needs to be answered following Beastie's use of early Israelite beginnings.

[Fortigurn]

LOL. I'll put the important words in red for you. Remeber, this is from Shanks who probably shares Dever's views. And yet he can still talk about other points of view! He sees no need to deny they exist. He would be a laughingstock if he did, you see.

Do you see where he said new inhabitants? That means they detected them! They detected them yet many scholars can't distinguish them from the existing population based on what they left behind. Yet you are saying that is not possible. Why would you say that? Do you think it makes you appear credible? Do you think it makes you appear open and forthcoming to deny it when admitting it does not mean that those "many scholars" are every scholar? Do you think it makes you appear reasonable and trustworthy when you won't admit that all scholars don't back Beastie when it is right in front of your face in writing?

It seems you still aren't reading this article. What he says is that a pattern emerged, based on a certain interpretation of the evidence. He goes on to say that this pattern may not be accurate, because the interpretation of the evidence may be at fault. He mentions that many scholars believe the interpretation of the evidence to be at fault.

This is not a matter of new inhabitants being detected despite many scholars being unable to distinguish them from the existing population. It is a dispute over where or not these artefacts represent a new population at all.

[Fortigurn]

fortigurn, I am going to try one more time.

Here is just one googled source: "Ken Karsmizki of the Columbia Gorge Discovery Center, has been working on a joint venture with NASA and other agencies on a remote sensing project using satellite and aerial imagery comparing Lewis and Clark maps to find camp sites along the Lewis and Clark trail."

Thanks, but it doesn't affect my second point.

Now as to your second point, which you think I am denying is possible. I have never said it wasn't possible. You read that into my posts.

I don't read it into you posts, I read it staring at me in your posts.

But before you can identify a site, you have to find it. What you and beastie have been saying is that it ought to be easy to identify traces of the Lehite group. After all, they found Lewis and Clark sites and identified them as such. You focused, because you wanted to, on how archeologists could identify groups.

What beastie and I have said is that you can identify new populations in existing sites, from their cultural remains. You have been attempting to deny this.

I am focusing, because I want to, on how difficult it is to find sites, even when you know where they are.

But finding sites isn't at all difficult for Mormons. You have a specific area of Meso-America in which to look, and countless populated sites there. All you have to do is examine them for evidence of Nephites. Hey, most of the populated sites have even been helpfully excavated for you by Meso-American archaeologists.

Tell me which non-Mormon scholar has a map to a Nephite site, has located it with a NASA satellite and then failed to identify it as Nephite? That is the task you set up.

That is not the task I set up. According to LGT, the Nephites were confined to a very specific geographical area. According to the LGT, you even have maps recording Nephite sites. All you have to do is go and look in those areas. Off you go, and come back when you've told us what you found.