Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[beastie]

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

I wonder myself sometimes.

Absolutely the only reason I continue to study Mesoamerica is due to the fact that it fascinates me. While I may be fooling myself, I imagine that if I can get to a point where I truly can understand - as much as an outsider from a different epoch can - the Maya culture in specific and the Mesoamerican world view in general, then I can begin to understand the basic elements of human society - the ties that bind us all, even the cultures that seem so alien. I have grown to be extremely fond of the Maya culture, and it irks me to see LDS try and rewrite significant portions of their history.

As to why I continue to debate - I actually never intended to delve back into it, after my last frustrating foray. But I find it very difficult to ignore some of the very misleading statements made by believers on this issue. But there is, in the end, little point to it, except for lurkers looking for information. I only do it at all for them. I doubt I will continue this part of my "hobby" for long, although I think I will continue to study Mesoamerica for quite a while. The BoM and its supporters are just a grease spot on the road of history, but the Maya - that is a civilization that lasted way longer and had a more pervasive worldview than I expect my own culture to have. Now THAT is worth understanding!! We're the grease spot compared to THEM. (not in terms of population numbers of course, but in terms of how long a particular worldview had amazing success and pervasiveness)

[beastie]

One last Dever quote and commentary, before I leave: (from Who were the early Israelites, p 73)

Archaeologists and anthropologists have developed a few simple, testable â??rulesâ? for recognizing when we are dealing with the immigration of a new people into an area. (1) the new society and culture must have characteristics that are different and distinguishable, usually marked by observable discontinuities in material culture. (2) The â??homelandâ? of the immigrant group must be known, and its culture well understood there. (3) The route by which the postulated immigration took place must be traceable, so the actual process may be reconstructed. The infiltration/immigration model for early Israel satisfies none of these requirements. There were probably some former pastoral nomads in the mix of early Israelite peoples, as the Bible remembers, but they have left few if any traces in the archaeological record.

(I bolded the first sentence for those who insist that since Dever's specialty is ancient Israel, and hence his comments are irrelevant in terms of this conversation.)

How is this quote applicable to the claims that the BoM took place in Mesoamerica?

Obviously, there is no evidence of (1). This is demonstrated by the fact that believers are told to look for Mesoamerica in the BoM, rather than vice versa. It is also demonstrated by the attempt to minimize any possible impact of the Lehite culture on Mesoamerica. Despite the fact that, apparently, both factions (Nephites and Lamanites â?? to say nothing of the early Jaredites) became the elite leaders of polities that were significant enough to have â??kingsâ? (no, not European kings, charity), and their mythology became a defining story for their ancestors, apologists must try to demonstrate that their culture â?? Judean, Christian â?? had absolutely NO impact on the larger culture at all. They immediately abandoned all their former material traditions and became indistinguishable from the larger culture. This alone, in the view of the archaeologists as Dever presents the case, eliminates this apologetic argument from academic archaeological support.

(2) is fully satisfied.

(3) is somewhat problematic, but not impossible. Trans-oceanic migration is possible (leaving aside the dish-like submarines, of course). There just isn't any evidence of it for the vast majority of times it has been claimed.

So this is the only hope of BoM historicists: â??There were probably some former pastoral nomads in the mix of early Israelite peoples, as the Bible remembers, but they have left few if any traces in the archaeological record.â?

This is why I fully expected this conversation to point towards attempting to reinterpret the BoM. This is the lesson of current BoM apologia. (It certainly was not the viewpoint of earlier BoM apologia, which seemed to fully expect to find the BoM in Mesoamerica.) So all that believers have left is to try and minimize the Lehites to a few nomads without any significance in the larger mix of Mesoamerica. They were nobodies, who faded into the larger culture without a trace. And this, while the only remaining hope, is hardly an easy task, given the BoM text.

Good luck to BoM historicists who continue to persist in this quest. You are going to need it. My opinion, which of course means nothing to believers, if that you all would be far better off exploring the pseudographia argument, which is well supported in Biblical history. And besides, this would give you a "but the Bible does it too" argument, of which some of you are so fond.

[charity]

beastie, on contrary, I have read every word of your posts on this topic. But I don't respond to every one, because your posts are so long and convoluted. So, as I said before, but which you no doubt skipped over, I pick some particularly amazing bit of non-logic or hubris and respond to that.

And, if you had bothered to read my posts, you would not be perseverating on the "not know where to look" idea. That was in response to bringing in the Lewis and Clark expedition as an example of how easy it was to find a trace of them in what should be the difficult task of locating a small, quickly moving, transient group. And the "aha, we have found 4 of their sites already so why can't you find a Book of Mormon site" argument. I pointed out that with a detailed map, detailed journals kept purely for the purpose of identifying geographic features, flora, fauna, etc. that they have only identified 4 out of 600 possible sites. A stunning rate of .67%.

I admire Sorenson, and others for what they have done in propsoing possible sites. It is not the same as knowing without 100 yards of where to start digging. If you are so widely read, I would think you could see that.

And for the lurkers here, what I think they are seeing from your posts, and fortigurn's as your disciple, that there is a stunning amount of arrogance showing up your ideas that you know exactly what to look for and where to find it.

[Merry]

And for the lurkers here, what I think they are seeing from your posts, and fortigurn's as your disciple, that there is a stunning amount of arrogance showing up your ideas

Are you addressing me? No-- there is a stunning amount of arrogance in the LDS interpretation of the BOM.

My re-interpretation accounts for this:

(1) the new society and culture must have characteristics that are different and distinguishable, usually marked by observable discontinuities in material culture

And found in the archaeological record.

and this:

(2) The â??homelandâ? of the immigrant group must be known, and its culture well understood there.

And reflected in the BOM, culture in some Indian tribes, and other literature.

and this:

(3) The route by which the postulated immigration took place must be traceable, so the actual process may be reconstructed.

And be reasonable and reflected in history and knowlege of technology of transoceanic travel.

As for--

this would give you a "but the Bible does it too" argument, of which some of you are so fond.

If you read the BOM as a parody of the Bible, ("You once had a Book like the Bible, but lost it-- so we'll GIVE you one) that argument fades into bizarreness.

It is NOT in Mesoamerica, and can only be explained on the East Coast and Great Lakes of North America, from 980 AD to 1470 AD, and the timeline is so tight that it can reasonably be explained by a written record.

[beastie]

Merry,

I want to read your essays. I have been distracted of late and procrastinated doing so. I know you and Dale have provided the link before, but would you accommodate me and provide it again? I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, and should have been getting ready to go by now. Thanks!!

[Merry]

No problem.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm#part-07

[juliann]

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 are halfway there...but you have no training whatsoever in how to use the information. That is why your reliance on random prooftexts that you don't know how to put together is so obvious.

I rely on Sorenson's map

Exactly. We have already seen how you continue to rely on Dever despite being shown that he is one cog in a big wheel. You don't see the problem with wanting to be taken seriously using scholarship when you refuse to address the full spectrum of ideas. Most of the time you refuse to even acknowledge what is out there. This is why Mosser and Owen were so impressive when they wrote their article about EVs losing the battle...why? They were unprepared to address the scope of LDS scholarship.

Let's go over your inability to vet the vast amount of information out there again. If you had a winning argument you would not have felt the need to bring in a different culture, continent and time for support. That is such a basic error that you would learn that such a mistake undoes your conclusions in your first research paper. Yet, you refuse to drop Dever despite the fact that you have opened Pandora's Box and now have to deal with the spectrum of scholarship on Israelite beginnings.

So here we are with you still insisting that Dever's theory is all that is there. But everyone can see from one article I linked to that Dever is but one voice in a very disputed and contentious area of study. Your reaction is to simply ignore all of the others who directly contradict your conclusions and splat up more Dever quotes! (BTW, I think even Dever allows for the possibility that there could be some foreigners in that local population.)

So you have created another Alice in Wonderland mess by bringing in a comparison that can be used to support BOM scholars who opt for a small immigrant population that was quickly assimilated. (I am putting aside your refusal to acknowledge that BOM scholarship isn't an indistinguishable lump.) Anyone who had any knowledge at all in how to construct a sound theory would know enough to avoid this. The simplest way to avoid it is to do a quick literature review, pick the position you like and then explain why it is superior to the others. Your pretending that there is only one viable position followed by a frantic series of strawmen to cover your mistake undoes you every time. You can dodge and dance around it until the cows come home...you still have handed BOM scholars a comparison that supports them.

As it stands, there are scholars every bit as credible as Dever who have said exactly what Brant has said on this very thread...its almost word for word likeness gives it a comical edge. What advantage do you think it gives you to ignore it? Do you really think everyone else will join you with your head in the sand? The only way to get around this is to take it head on. Acknowledge it and then explain why the position you back is better than the position that supports the BOM theories. Or, continue to pontificate and pretend and wallpaper the place with quotes from one book as if no other books existed. Works for us!

Meanwhile, you have given the scenerio of an incoming population that can't be distinguised from the surrounding culture all the backing it needs from the very biblical scholars you dragged in the minute you brought up "Dever". All that is required for you to do something like this each and every time you get on your hobby horse is to encourage you keep talking.

[beastie]

Juliann

Apparently you believe the rules are different in Mesoamerica studies. They are not. Archaeologists talk about the impact of foreign elements, as detected by material traditions, all the time. I don't have the time to do so right now, but will later put together some citations demonstrating this.

[juliann]

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.

Beastology: Pretend that someone has said new immigrants can "become locals immediately" and run with it.

Methodology: Can a new population's origins be determined when nothing is found to distinguish a difference between them and the surrounding culture? Scholarship is divided when it comes to the Israelite beginnings that were introduced.

[juliann]

Juliann

Apparently you believe the rules are different in Mesoamerica studies. They are not. Archaeologists talk about the impact of foreign elements, as detected by material traditions, all the time. I don't have the time to do so right now, but will later put together some citations demonstrating this.

Beastology: The rules are the same. I'll show you a book.

Methodology: Similarities can be found worldwide. Convergence must be demonstrated to create a credible theory to avoid parallelomania.

[juliann]

Beastology: 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.

Methodology: 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. Israel Finkelstein

[senior lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, co-director of the Tell Ira excavations in the Negev (1979â??1981), director of the Land of Ephraim survey and director of the excavations at Biblical Shiloh (1981â??1984). ]

[beastie]

Juliann,

I must say you have the worst case of unwarranted condescension I have ever seen.

Beastology: Pretend that someone has said new immigrants can "become locals immediately" and run with it.

Methodology: Can a new population's origins be determined when nothing is found to distinguish a difference between them and the surrounding culture? Scholarship is divided when it comes to the Israelite beginnings that were introduced.

The division has to do with the interpretation of data. It does not have to do with the premise that for an immigrant population to be identified, material remnants from their former culture must be found. Every article you referenced made this clear. Even those who believe some evidence can be found to support the alien immigration premise utilize material artifacts indicative of a foreign culture to bolster their case.

In regards to â??pretendingâ?, apparently you read other peopleâ??s posts as carelessly as you read mine. Zak just compared this issue to the Katrina victims, who moved to a new location and immediately became locals.

Moreover, to insist that it is reasonable to conclude the existence of the Nephites/Lamanites without any archaeological evidence, you have to be drawing two conclusions, due to the lack of archaeological evidence of Judean 600 BC influence of any sort:

1 â?? The Nephites and Lamanites did, indeed, immediately become locals and completely abandoned their former material traditions, or

2 â?? The Nephites and Lamanites retained some of their former material traditions for a while, but never taught these skills and methods to any of their followers, despite being elite leaders, and their followers never mimicked their elite leaders. This would be highly unusual, to say the least.

If there is some other logical conclusion that can be drawn, please share it. Snide retorts about my inadequacies wonâ??t count.

My original quote:

Juliann

Apparently you believe the rules are different in Mesoamerica studies. They are not. Archaeologists talk about the impact of foreign elements, as detected by material traditions, all the time. I don't have the time to do so right now, but will later put together some citations demonstrating this.

Juliannâ??s reply:

Beastology: The rules are the same. I'll show you a book.

Methodology: Similarities can be found worldwide. Convergence must be demonstrated to create a credible theory to avoid parallelomania.

Parallelomania concerns the attempt to use isolated similarities in data (ie, cultural artifacts, material remains) to connect one population with another. From Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, page 96:

Archaeologist David L. Clark has suggested that trait list comparisons can be used to trace population movements only when certain requirements of the data are met. The traits must be specifically the same, not just vaguely similar. The traits being compared cannot be isolated behaviors. They must be part of an entire complexes of traits, all of which are reflected in the supposed source and immigrant populations. The traits must co-occur repeatedly, both physically and chronologically. The similarities must be so complete that the likelihood that they resulted from coincidentally parallel development or functional necessity would be minimal.

What we have been discussing here is something different: do archaeologists identify immigrant populations through their material traditions that display differences from the local population? The answer is clearly yes. Parellomania may be a flaw in attempting to identify the origin of the immigrant population, but that is the next step. The first step is to recognize a discontinuity in material culture which is possibly indicative of an immigrant population.

Good thing I hadnâ??t bothered putting together the quotes yet. I deliberately waited until I returned from my weekend before even starting it, because I was fairly certain that you would not be interested in statements or examples from Mesoamerican archaeologists.

Beastology: 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.

Methodology: 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. Israel Finkelstein

[senior lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, co-director of the Tell Ira excavations in the Negev (1979â??1981), director of the Land of Ephraim survey and director of the excavations at Biblical Shiloh (1981â??1984). ]

I bolded the word you consistently ignore.

My previous Dever quote:

Archaeologists and anthropologists have developed a few simple, testable â??rulesâ? for recognizing when we are dealing with the immigration of a new people into an area. (1) the new society and culture must have characteristics that are different and distinguishable, usually marked by observable discontinuities in material culture. (2) The â??homelandâ? of the immigrant group must be known, and its culture well understood there. (3) The route by which the postulated immigration took place must be traceable, so the actual process may be reconstructed. The infiltration/immigration model for early Israel satisfies none of these requirements. There were probably some former pastoral nomads in the mix of early Israelite peoples, as the Bible remembers, but they have left few if any traces in the archaeological record.

Note in particular the bolded sentence:

(1) the new society and culture must have characteristics that are different and distinguishable, usually marked by observable discontinuities in material culture.

Nowhere does he, or I, indicate that a TOTAL cultural break must be present. What must be present is â??observable discontinuities in material culture.â?

[Fortigurn]

Beastology: 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.

Yes. To date, you have failed to answer this.

Methodology: 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. Israel Finkelstein

[senior lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, co-director of the Tell Ira excavations in the Negev (1979â??1981), director of the Land of Ephraim survey and director of the excavations at Biblical Shiloh (1981â??1984). ]

We've been through this before. We agree that no total cultural break should be expected. That is in fact a fundamental plank in our argument. It is your argument that a total cultural break should be expected. We agree with Finkelstein that there should be no total break, and that there should be 'a seeming link to the previous period'.