Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[juliann]

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.

Um, yeah? And why don't they know if those artifacts represent a new population? Why is it in dispute? It is because many don't think they are distinct from the surrounding culture. If it was distinct then there wouldn't be a dispute! It would be self-evident! Do you need help applying that to Beasties' my way or no way methodology? Does Finkelstein make it more clear for you?

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.

Did you see the even if? Even if new groups entered? See how this school of thought allows for that but discounts it? Why is it discounted? Because the new group can look like the old group. Just like Brant said. Is it as ridiculous when non-LDS scholars say the same thing? Just curious.

Now it is time for you to start providing references instead of "is NOT!".

[juliann]

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.

We have maps! Please produce them. Produce every single version created by every single theorist. Then tell us which one is the correct one since you know so much more about it than any Mormon.

[Fortigurn]

And why don't they know if those artifacts represent a new population? Why is it in dispute?

Because there is no consensus on what constituted Israelite artefacts during this era, whilst the artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing Canaanite culture.

It is because many don't think they are distinct from the surrounding culture.

Exactly. It is argued that the 'Israelites' were local Canaanites, not a new population at all. Why? On what basis? Because there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area, because there is no indisputable evidence of new cultural artefacts.

Did you see the even if? Even if new groups entered? See how this school of thought allows for that but discounts it? Why is it discounted? Because the new group can look like the old group.

That is talking about a complete cultural break. No one here is arguing for a complete cultural break when a new population enters a site. Beastie has made this point to you before when it was raised.

[Fortigurn]

We have maps! Please produce them.

Click on the link.

Produce every single version created by every single theorist.

Why should I? Why can't you find them? Didn't you know they exist? But hey, here's one site of maps, and here's a thread on this very forum with maps from Google Earth.

Then tell us which one is the correct one since you know so much more about it than any Mormon.

I have never made such a claim. Please address my post.

[charity]

Because there is no consensus on what constituted Israelite artefacts during this era, whilst the artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing Canaanite culture.

Exactly. It is argued that the 'Israelites' were local Canaanites, not a new population at all. Why? On what basis? Because there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area, because there is no indisputable evidence of new cultural artefacts.

That is talking about a complete cultural break. No one here is arguing for a complete cultural break when a new population enters a site. Beastie has made this point to you before when it was raised.

Oops, fortugurn, you stepped in it again. You and/or beastie maintained in another post that there was a different culture because of skirt length. Which is it?

And a map where areas are suggested is not the same as the Lewis and Clark maps with detailed information, including latitudes and longitudes.

[Fortigurn]

Oops, fortugurn, you stepped in it again. You and/or beastie maintained in another post that there was a different culture because of skirt length. Which is it?

That depends entirely on the era and the sites you're discusing. You would have to ask beastie, since she raised it. In the sites discussed in the article I cited, there wasn't indisputable evidence for a new population. At other sites, there is.

But you're still running from the issue, which is that archaeologists are able to identify immigrant populations by the cultural artefacts they bring to a new area.

And a map where areas are suggested is not the same as the Lewis and Clark maps with detailed information, including latitudes and longitudes.

Hey, it's a start. You were complaining you had nothing to go on, not even maps. Wrong. There are the maps, there are the areas, they're not large areas, many of them have been dug by archaeologists already, it's a lot less to cover than Mesopotamia, most of the work has been done, so go look and come back when you have something to show us.

[juliann]

Because there is no consensus on what constituted Israelite artefacts during this era, whilst the artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing Canaanite culture.

Exactly. It is argued that the 'Israelites' were local Canaanites, not a new population at all. Why? On what basis? Because there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area, because there is no indisputable evidence of new cultural artefacts.

That is talking about a complete cultural break. No one here is arguing for a complete cultural break when a new population enters a site. Beastie has made this point to you before when it was raised.

Give the man a big round of applause!

It is argued that the 'Israelites' were local Canaanites, not a new population at all. Why? On what basis? Because there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area, because there is no indisputable evidence of new cultural artefacts.

This is the problem in trying to find BOM people...there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area. The conclusion when there is no evidence is that the people were the "locals"....thanks for pointing that out one more time. I know you don't get it but everyone else will. This is what Brant has said consistently. Accepting this not very difficult concept when non-LDS scholars are involved but not when LDS scholars are involved should make embarrass you because of your obvious bias. Let me put the rest of your matter-of-fact conclusions in perspective for you. Maybe it will help if I put the words in for you:

Because there is no consensus on what constituted [bOM]artefacts during this era, whilst the artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing [Mesoamerican] culture.

It is argued that the [Nephites] were local [Mesoamericans], not a new population at all. Why? On what basis? Because there is no evidence of a new culture entering the area, because there is no indisputable evidence of new cultural artefacts.[/quote]

Does that help? Get it? This is the countermopologist position. They are locals because there is no new evidence. Let's forget that Beastie takes Dever's position on this when it comes to Isrealites and then tries to use the above when it comes to the BOM. Are you as confused as she is yet?

Now remember...the beginnings of Israel is in dispute...if you can leave lala land for a minute and contemplate the schools of thought laid out in the Shanks' article. Good credible scholars are on several sides of this issue. That means there is support for the position you have just given...and support for other positions. That actually helps the Mormons more than you because our position can't be put down with the usual "uh UH" methodology....Beastie's refusal to even acknowledge the existence of anything past Dever makes that real clear.

So what is a countermo to do when they can't get everyone to shut their eyes, stop their ears and march in a line? Admit that not everyone supports their pet theory even when it isn't applied to the BOM? Or just take one small slice of what is there and pretend that no one has ever said anything differently? Is this done out of ignorance or is it calculated and deliberate withholding of information? The reader will have to decide. Nevermind that it was ridiculous for her to bring up the beginning of Israel to account for the BOM in the first place.

This is the good this board does. It puts a spotlight on the countermo tricks of the trade. Now we are on notice that Beastie is doing this in everything she takes on. It is no longer necessary to read the two books she copies from when we are familiar with her methodology. We now know she leaves out information that would allow a reader to make an informed decision..and continues to deny it even when it is put in front of her face, thus, reader beware.

But you're still running from the issue, which is that archaeologists are able to identify immigrant populations by the cultural artefacts they bring to a new area.

Good grief...you really don't get this at all.

[juliann]

Click on the link.

Why should I? Why can't you find them? Didn't you know they exist? But hey, here's one site of maps, and here's a thread on this very forum with maps from Google Earth.

Ah, the old make a claim and then withhold information. What a surprise. If you want to discuss other people's maps then put them all up. ALL of them. Tell us who is using them and what their rationale is. You brought this up, bud. I'm not your research assistant although I do help Beastie quite a bit when she can't find stuff.

[Fortigurn]

Because there is no consensus on what constituted [bOM]artefacts during this era, whilst the artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing [Mesoamerican] culture.

You really don't want to go here:

* There is no need for a specific consensus on what constituted BOM artefacts for people agree that they did not look like Meso-American artefacts, they looked like contemporary 6th century BC Israelite artefacts (so now you know what to look for)

* If you claim there is no consensus on what constituted BOM artefacts during this era, and that all artefacts which have been found can all be accounted for within the existing Meso-American culture, then you are admitting that there is zero evidence for a central claim of the BOM

Now remember...the beginnings of Israel is in dispute...if you can leave lala land for a minute and contemplate the schools of thought laid out in the Shanks' article. Good credible scholars are on several sides of this issue. That means there is support for the position you have just given...and support for other positions. That actually helps the Mormons more than you because our position can't be put down with the usual "uh UH" methodology....Beastie's refusal to even acknowledge the existence of anything past Dever makes that real clear.

Once more you are missing the point. There are various schools of thought as to whether or not the Israelites were native Canaanites or an immigrant people. That isn't the issue, and that does not affect my or beastie's argument. Our argument is that all schools of thought are agreed on the method of identifying the Israelites within Canaan. Both beastie and I are entirely prepared to apply that method to the presence of Israelites in Canaan, so your entire argument here is utterly without merit.

Now we are on notice that Beastie is doing this in everything she takes on. It is no longer necessary to read the two books she copies from when we are familiar with her methodology. We now know she leaves out information that would allow a reader to make an informed decision..and continues to deny it even when it is put in front of her face, thus, reader beware.

She did absolutely no such thing. On the contrary, she demonstrated clearly that you had done this yourselves.

Ah, the old make a claim and then withhold information. What a surprise.

That is completely untrue. I am not witholding any information. I made a claim, and supported it.

If you want to discuss other people's maps then put them all up.

My purpose in mentioning the maps was not to discuss them, but to point out to you that they exist. You know where to look for Nephite cultural artefacts, so now look. This has nothing to do with me being your 'research assistant', which is highly ironic since I was the one who was asked to do this research for you and charity.

[charity]

[quote name='Fortigurn' date='Feb 8 2007, 10:58 AM' post='1208121354'

* There is no need for a specific consensus on what constituted BOM artefacts for people agree that they did not look like Meso-American artefacts, they looked like contemporary 6th century BC Israelite artefacts (so now you know what to look for)

[beastie]

Charity,

Just doing a quick drive by -

Artefact is also an accepted spelling - I believe Brits use it. I have seen it used in texts.

[juliann]

Once more you are missing the point. There are various schools of thought as to whether or not the Israelites were native Canaanites or an immigrant people. That isn't the issue, and that does not affect my or beastie's argument. Our argument is that all schools of thought are agreed on the method of identifying the Israelites within Canaan. Both beastie and I are entirely prepared to apply that method to the presence of Israelites in Canaan, so your entire argument here is utterly without merit.

Whoosh!

[beastie]

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 -

Depending on the site, part of the reason they may refer to 'new inhabitants' is due to an increase of population of the particular hill site. IOW, they may still be canaanite, but fleeing a more populated center for the hills. In that way, although they are not from a different culture, they are "new" to the particular site because they didn't live there previously.

But tell me - if the archaeologists can't detect the new inhabitants from their material artifacts, and there is no contemporary written document, how are you suggesting that the archaeologists know the inhabitants are new at all?

Please don't dodge this answer. It's important to understand our difference of opinion and interpretation.

[juliann]

First, it wasn't an "increase of population". It was a population in a previously uninhabited area. That is how they detected them. That is pretty darn clear from just the Shanks article and that wasn't a difficult or long article. Nor does it address the real issue with your assumptions.

But tell me - if the archaeologists can't detect the new inhabitants from their material artifacts, and there is no contemporary written document, how are you suggesting that the archaeologists know the inhabitants are new at all?

See above. I'm assuming the irony of that question is lost on you.

[beastie]

That's not entirely true, some of the hill sites were previously inhabited, just more sparsely. You can see this in Dever's descriptions of particular sites.

See above. I'm assuming the irony of that question is lost on you.

Oh, I understand the irony - I honestly did not know if you realized the implications. Sometimes I have no idea what point you are trying to argue.

So, in other words, your objection to the citation was irrelevant. I knew that all along, I just wasn't sure you realized it. And I'm still not certain you realize it. And I have no idea how you interpreted any of it, other than the fact you still insist that it is within human behavior for an immigrant group to move to a new area and "become" locals immediately.

Which brings us back to square one.

[juliann]

Which brings us back to square one.

No, it brings us back to the very people you brought into the debate. Dever is but one participant. But nice attempt at a distraction.

[Zakuska]

It happens all the time. Take a look at the Catrina Victims. Large groups of them moved to where ever they where moved and pretty much became locals... imediatley. I know lots of them never went back.

[beastie]

I really do give up this time.

It just seems odd that Mesoamerica without the Nephites and Lamanites looks exactly like the Mesoamerica with the Nephites and Lamanites looks like. I think that's what you call a little clue.

I also wonder why all those people, already living in a powerful, successful polity, wanted Nephi to be their king. (and no, charity, unlike you, I understand what a mesoamerican king was) He obviously had absolutely nothing to offer them.

[charity]

Yep. Read a book once and became an expert. We see how it is.

[Fortigurn]

Contemporary 6th century BC Israelite artifacts. (And the correct spelling is artifact, not artefact. Sorry, the school teacher in me which thinks people's arguments are more credible if the small technicalities are followed.)

Since I've been teaching English for two and a half years in a non-English speaking country, I'm used to this. You may be interested to know that 'artifact' is the US spelling, whilst 'artefact' is the spelling followed in other native English speaking countries (such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand). It is the spelling I use, since I am from Australia.

What are contemporary 6th century Israelite artifacts as applied to Nephites? Urban Jerusalem artifacts? Wandering nomads who have lived on the desert for 10 years artifacts? What ever they had taken with them from Jerusalem would probably have been replaced. They had most likely been living in tents. They had been on a sea voyage, on a ship of uncertain size.

This is very interesting. Earlier you were representing this group as Jerusalem urbanites who had to buy everything they needed, because they couldn't produce it for themselves. But now they've turned into self sufficient 'Wandering nomads who have lived on the desert for 10 years', who were able during that time to 'replace' what they took from Jerusalem, and who end up building ships. What a transformation.

The answer to the question 'What artefacts?', is '6th century Isratelite artefacts'. All those things they used in the 10 years they were wandering in the wilderness, as well as everything they took with them on their voyage. Whatever those things were, they were distinctly not Meso-American.

This is the bill of lading: "And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children." 1 Nephi 18: 6

Provisions, seeds, and a few personal possessions. Which were?

I'm sorry, but where did it say 'a few personal possessions'? And what about all the tools? Are you saying they dumped the tools and left them behind?

Then these desert dwellers, who have enjoyed only a short respite in an oasis, come into a land which has a totally different climate. Lush vegetation. Rain. Rivers, ponds, puddles. Everything they do, they have to be taught by a prophet.

I asked this once before, but you didn't answer, why did Nephi have to teach them how to work timber, work with metals? Because they didn't already know how. Which means any of their 600 B.C. Israelite culture was not in their skill set.

I did answer this. You have put your finger on an interesting contradiction in the text, that's for sure. This community had, according to you, been self-sufficient for 10 years in the wilderness, and ended up building ocean going ships, in which they took their cultural artefacts. Yet shortly after they arrive in Meso-America, they have forgotten all the skills they had previously, and none of their original artefacts have survived.

Can you provide the evidence for this please?

And how did Nephi know how to do it? God told him. What did God tell him? What kind of artifacts would be left from what God told him?

Well that's an interesting question. What artefacts indeed? That's the question you have to answer. Are you going to argue that God taught they to abandon their previous culture, and to adopt entirely the Meso-American culture and artefacts? Clearly this is not the case, since Nephi taught them things which were not part of the Meso-American culture, and would stand out very obviously in the archaeological record as a result.

Now, tell me again, how a reasonable person can think that the Nephites simply imported an old world style, which they couldn't produce on their own, into a completely new melieu? And why any reasonable person would expect same old same old stuff in a totally foreign environment?

When people move to a new place, they bring with them what they had in the old place (the passage you quoted helpfully tells us they did this). When they move to a new place, they use the same techniques they did in the old place, and make the same things. You may think that this is unreasonable, but this is the historical pattern of human migration. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and a great deal of it has been provided in this very thread. The new migrant population may learn the skills of the new area, and adapt them, but a 'complete break' on either side of the coin does not take place.

The claims so far:

* The Nephite group which left Jerusalem had to buy everything, having no creative skills and being Jerusalem urbanites utterly dependent on purchasing what they needed: on the contrary, they were self-sufficient for 10 years in the wilderness, during which time they replaced what wore out or was lost, and they built ocean going ships, in which they took their cultural artefacts (clearly the had all the skills and tools they needed to continue their culture)

* We don't have any idea of where to look for Nephites in the New World: on the contrary, they are confined by the LGT to a very specific area, which is even smaller than the area in which archaeologists look for Israelites, an area apparently so well described in the Book of Mormon that Mormon apologists have made maps describing where the Nephite population was at various times (and where various events took place), and indeed a number of Mormon apologists claim to have found them in Meso-America

* Evidence for small immigrant groups cannot be found among the areas into which they move: on the contrary, even transient groups as small as a dozen people leave almost indelible archaeological remains, and the Nephites were neither small nor transient in the New World

* Immigrant groups abandon their culture as soon as (or even before), they move to a new area: on the contrary, the historical pattern of human migration pattern is overwhelmingly that they import their culture with them, and the artefacts they create follow that culture

* The Nephites had no tools or skills with which to make artefacts representing their original culture: on the contrary, they had successfully managed to do this for 10 years while in the wilderness, managed to build ocean going vessels with which to reach the New World, and were taught a range of skills by Nephi which were entirely new to Meso-America, and which would stand out very obviously in the archaeological record as a result

I don't see anything new in the last few pages. It's all a rehash of what has already been answered.

[charity]

fortigurn, first, I am not "making claims." I am asking questions about hard rock claims made by you and others. You portray that you know what the Nephites would have brought with them to mesoAmerica. I think you ought to be a little more humble about your supposed knowledge.

Second, about switching from one argument to another. If the Lehite group left Jerusalem with "stuff" but didn't now how to manufacture the "stuff" themselves, and it wore out, they would either have to learn how to make it or buy or trade to get more. They followed the Spice Trail. Lots of people, not necessarily Israelites on the trail. Did they buy from or trade with others? Did they learn how to make stuff from others? In either case, it wasn't 6th century Israelitish stuff to leave as artifacts.

Third, you asked for evidence of personal possessions. It's in the record. 1 Nephi 18: 6 And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children.

Fourth, your argument that when people go someplace they ALWAYS just import wholesale what they had before is ridiculous. You have to look at the group. I would think you could see that this Nephite group does not share many charactistics with most migrant groups. They were tiny. They were not a peasant group. They did not have to depend on what they knew when they left. (They had a prophet who could receive divine tuition whenever they needed it.) They got to a place that was completely outside their experience.

I again ask you to consider how you can be so arrogantly sure you know what artifacts they left from 2600 years ago.

edited to add: It may all seem like a rehash but you still will not engage the argument, and you continue to misrepresent what I am saying.

[antishock8]

The willful ignorance of Mormons displayed on this thread is stunning. Beastie, I'm not sure why you do what you do.

If you are going to cheerlead don't insult all Mormons in the process. ~ Mods

[Fortigurn]

fortigurn, first, I am not "making claims."

Sure you are. You've made the claims I listed. You make some more here. So let's go:

Second, about switching from one argument to another. If the Lehite group left Jerusalem with "stuff" but didn't now how to manufacture the "stuff" themselves, and it wore out, they would either have to learn how to make it or buy or trade to get more. They followed the Spice Trail. Lots of people, not necessarily Israelites on the trail. Did they buy from or trade with others? Did they learn how to make stuff from others? In either case, it wasn't 6th century Israelitish stuff to leave as artifacts.

Proof please that:

* They followed 'the Spice Trail'

* They bought/traded 'with others'

In any case, it doesn't matter if they 'bought/traded with others'. They would still have artefacts which look nothing like Meso-American artefacts. And no matter what artefacts they bought on 'the Spice Trail', it wouldn't change what was in their heads - the knowledge of their own cultural artefacts.

Third, you asked for evidence of personal possessions. It's in the record. 1 Nephi 18: 6 And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say 'a few personal possessions'. It says 'whatosever things we had brought with us'. To me, that reads as everything they owned at that point, which is certainly more than 'a few personal possessions'.

For example, even after 10 years of wandering in the wilderness, they still had grain from Jerusalem:

1 Nephi 18:

24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our aseeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

Now that's something for which there should be plenty of archaeological evidence. After all, it 'did grow exceedingly', and they were 'blessed in abundance'.

They also had at least one compass:

1 Nephi 18:

21 And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that I aprayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed the winds did cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm.

Clearly here is another Jerusalem artefact they took from the Old World to the New. By the way, I'd like to see the archaeological use for the compass in 6th century BC Israel when you have time. Thanks.

Don't forget the bellows they also had, which they used to make a simple blast furnace, or bloomery:

1 Nephi 17:

11 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make a bellows wherewith to ablow the fire, of the skins of beasts; and after I had made a bellows, that I might have wherewith to blow the fire, I did smite two stones together that I might make fire.

By the way, I'd like to see the archaeological use for the use of bellows for smelting in 6th century BC Israel when you have time. Thanks.

Let's not forget all the metal tools they made, which they would have brought with them:

1 Nephi 17:

16 And it came to pass that I did make tools of the ore which I did molten out of the rock.

There's that reference to smelting technology again.

I have to say, 1 Nephi provides plenty of humourous phrases. This one's a beauty:

...mine ankles were much swollen, and great was the soreness thereof.

By the way, ever counted how many times 'And it came to pass' occurs in 1 Nephi 18? It's amazing. Like a refrain.

Fourth, your argument that when people go someplace they ALWAYS just import wholesale what they had before is ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous. When people move, they take with them what they have. They use it when they get to where they are going. What's so ridiculous about that? Examples of this are numerous in the historical record, and have been given in this thread.

You have to look at the group. I would think you could see that this Nephite group does not share many charactistics with most migrant groups. They were tiny. They were not a peasant group. They did not have to depend on what they knew when they left. (They had a prophet who could receive divine tuition whenever they needed it.) They got to a place that was completely outside their experience.

I've dealt with all this. They were tiny? So what? They were not a peasant group? So what? They had smelting skills and construction skills, and you haven't provided any evidence that they were unable to support themselves. They had a prophet who could receive divine tuition? You bet they did, and he taught them all he knew. They got to a place that was completely outside their experience? So what?

I again ask you to consider how you can be so arrogantly sure you know what artifacts they left from 2600 years ago.

I'm not being arrogant when I say 'Because it's in the text'.

So basically you've repeated your argument without responding to mine.

[beastie]

Yep. Read a book once and became an expert. We see how it is.

Charity,

I've been studying Mesoamerica in particular and archaeology in general for about two years now, and have read well over thirty texts so far. (and that's not counting the apologia I have read, largely on the net, nor the additional Mesoamerican websites I have read)

You, on the other hand, don't even seem willing to read an entire post.

Yes, I do see how it is. I'm sure your 'seeing' is completely different than mine, but then, I try to read and understand someone's point before responding. I have seen almost no evidence that you have done so on this thread, and quite a bit of evidence that you definitely have not.

[beastie]

We don't have any idea of where to look for Nephites in the New World: on the contrary, they are confined by the LGT to a very specific area, which is even smaller than the area in which archaeologists look for Israelites, an area apparently so well described in the Book of Mormon that Mormon apologists have made maps describing where the Nephite population was at various times (and where various events took place), and indeed a number of Mormon apologists claim to have found them in Meso-America

I want to add to this, as well. I rely on Sorenson's map because he is the most often used source by apologists, and he wrote an entire book justifying why he chose the exact location he did. Although, at times, he read too much into directionality, IMO, he certainly makes a good case otherwise. The BoM does give enough geographical hints that you can't just pick any spot in Mesoamerica and declare it a fit. This is another difficulty for those who rely on the hope that a future site will be discovered that will better fit the BoM in terms of size and perhaps artifacts - will it also fit in terms of geographical references in the BoM?

There are many requirements for a potential site. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and imagines that future discoveries will help, ought to reread Sorenson's "The Book of Mormon Mapped" chapter in his Ancient Setting.