Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[Fortigurn]

Why? Sure there are things that can be proven by Archeology from the Iliad and the BIble. But what makes one superior over the other in the parts that must be taken on faith?

What makes one a more rational basis for faith is the extent to which it is substantiated by reality.

[charity]

All the dancing around metals etc! This is a great article: http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/060522metallurgy.html

[beastie]

This is a familiar argument. So familiar I already addressed it on my web essays:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index....nce_of_Evidence

Iâ??m saving myself time by just taking this from my essay:

The problem for this argument is that archaeological evidence for both advanced metallurgy and the metals they produce have, indeed, been discovered in ancient Mesoamerica. They are just in the wrong time period. For example, the report concerning the Excavations at the Copper Smelting Site of El Manchon, Guerrero, M

[beastie]

I love this gem from Charity's article (btw, brant and I discussed this on ZLMB a while ago, because this "linguistic evidence" is very misleading.)

The problem with ancient metal artifacts is that metal (left untreated or exposed to the elements) corrodes and deteriorates - especially in the humid and wet jungles of Mesoamerica. Language studies, however, help confirm that metallurgy was known anciently in the Americas.

Non-Mormon scholars who have reconstructed parts of several ancient Mesoamerican languages were puzzled to find a word for "metal" existed as early as 1000 B.C., while the early language of the Olmecs had a word for metal as early as 1500 B.C.

There is a vast difference between metal working (which the Mesoamericans were doing since the Olmec period onward) and metallurgy, which is described in the BoM. Of course there is linguistic evidence for "metals" in ancient Mesoamerica. Only a fool would imagine there wouldn't be. But there is no linguistic evidence I've ever heard of for metallurgy.

More from my essay:

Dr. Sorenson does disservice to Mesoamerican scholars, if he is insinuating that words describing advanced metallurgy exist in various Mesoamerican languages, and yet have gone ignored. I would like to see hard evidence supporting that contention. However, since he uses the word â??metalâ? in his essay, I suspect that he really is just talking about words for just that: metal. As in, say, iron mirrors? That is hardly ignored, and evidence of such basic metalworking abounds.

While Matheny may not have specifically addressed his linguistic claims, Stan Larson, in Quest for the Gold Plates, did address the issue, on page 197:

â??Historical and comparative linguistics of various Mesoamerican languages sometimes suggests the existence of a word for metal during the period from ca. 2500 B.C. to A.D. 400. Citing a study which proposed a word for metal in the reconstructed Proto-Mixtecan language, Sorenson said that â??the researchers were puzzled by the fact that a word for â??metalâ?? seemed to have existed in the protolanguage at about 1000 B.C.â? Sorenson misrepresented his source, since the linguists, Robert E. Longacre and Rene Millon, actually said:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizonâ?¦For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metalâ?¦The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence. Examination of the set suggest that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

Longacre and Millon explained that greater certainty is obtained when a group of related vocabulary terms describing a specific cultural practice is reconstructed for the protolanguage. The likelihood of the same â??semantic shiftsâ? having occurred in all of the words associated with such a practice is highly improbable. Longacre and Millon discussed six strong complexes of related terms: the Maize Complex, the Maguey Complex, the Agricultural Complex, the Masa Preparation Complex, the Weaving Complex, and the Palm Complex, but they referred again to the conjectured word for â??metalâ?? in a list of six terms excluded for various reasons. This effort to determine vocabulary items in the Proto-Mixtecan language brought forth merely a conjectured word for either metal, or a bell, or a rattle, and not a group of related metallurgic terms. This certainly does not reveal names for many different kinds of metal, such as the numerous metals required by the Book of Mormon â?? (1) gold, (2) silver, (3) iron, (4) steel, (5) copper, (6) brass, and (7) an unknown substance named â??ziffâ?.â?

So, once again, what is needed is not a word that may mean â??metalâ?, but rather a group of related words that would describe the advanced metallurgy contained in the Book of Mormon.

[charity]

So let me see if I get this correctly.

#1. There aren't any traces of metalurgy or pots which required high heats, so that means the Lehites didn't exist because they would have brought that with them if they were real.

#2. There are many known instances of metalugry (so there must have been pots, too) but they weren't where the Nephites were, if we knew where they were.

Seems like that is a contradiction here.

[beastie]

Meanwhile, I'm really looking forward to that comparison of the beginnings of Israel with a few dozen people on another continent in some unknown place. But let's start with the beginnings of Israel since so much is known about that! Then we can get to that "Judean pot" and solve the problem.

I have quoted, several times, the portion of the BoM that states Nephi taught skills to his people. His people were already inhabiting an important polity that went on to become THE most important and powerful polity of the region, according to Sorenson. So, for what feels like the umpteenth time, we are not just discussing Nephi and his immediate family and why there is no trace of their Old World material traditions. We are discussing why there is no evidence of these same material traditions Nephi taught to "his people", who then proceeded to become an industrious people, using these same skills.

The truth is that I know Juliann will continue to ignore this point just as she has reliably done thus far. So it is for the benefit of others that I, once again, point it out.

BTW, Juliann, I'm still waiting for you to explain how your quote contradicts my assertions. Remember, you said I ought to admit I had been "caught" by your googled quote. I will gladly admit as much as soon as your explain how you caught me.

[beastie]

So let me see if I get this correctly.

#1. There aren't any traces of metalurgy or pots which required high heats, so that means the Lehites didn't exist because they would have brought that with them if they were real.

#2. There are many known instances of metalugry (so there must have been pots, too) but they weren't where the Nephites were, if we knew where they were.

Seems like that is a contradiction here.

No, you do not have it correct at all.

There is evidence of metallurgy and advanced pottery but it occurred hundreds of years past the BoM time frame.

That's the whole point. Evidence exists. It survives the Mesoamerican tropical climate. Archaeologists have found it. It's just not the right time period.

Head, wall, bang.

[Fortigurn]

It's ok beastie, I believe you.

[beastie]

The prevailing view? That Palestine was gradually settled by semi-nomadic groups searching for pasture and land. When they became settled farmers gathered in a tribal league then they began to expand into the cities. In other words, if you actually read a history of the ANE instead of prooftext one book, it is filled with stories much the same....there was not a definable or sudden settlement that could be used as a starting point.

Yes, Juliann, yes. And how did they make that determination???

Because they knew that if a group of foreigners had moved into the area there would be archaeological traces of their existence. Of course the pots are secondary - how many times have I said this on this very thread????? (and why do I even IMAGINE your read my posts??)

When confronted with the complete lack of evidence to support a foreign element in the area, what did Dever do? Did he say "well, the Israelites moved into Canaan from Egypt but since they completely adopted the material tradition of their new land and abandoned their former material tradition, we can't expect to find evidence of their existence?"

NO. Obviously not. They admitted what the archaeological evidence demonstrated.

It amazes me that you so consistently provide quotes that support what I've been saying all along and act as if you've "caught" me.

[beastie]

It's ok beastie, I believe you.

Thank you. Sometimes after these threads go on like this I begin to feel like I'm experiencing a version of chinese water torture and question my own sanity.

[charity]

I could do wall banging, too. I have mentioned this but beastie doesn't seem to think it is significant. How many Israelites entered Caanan? Upwards of 2 million. How many Lehites came to mesoAmerica? Upwards of 30. 2 million people ought to leave a big footprint. 30, hardly a trace.

And beastie said, "There is evidence of metallurgy and advanced pottery but it occurred hundreds of years past the BoM time frame."

If she had read the article I linked as she suggested she had, she would have noted that there were many instances of metalurgy from many years prior to the Lehites landing in the New World. Just a slight comprehension problem there.

[juliann]

Um, Beastie....they don't know when the early Israelites came into the region...they don't even know who they are and they don't know where they came from. They are theorizing. That is why Dever is so intent on making his case...there is much disagreement. Now that would mean to most people that there isn't evidence that can determine all of this. That is why Dever gets into such nasty fights with everyone else. Understand?

And nice dodge on the pottery...it was secondary to Dever's point...not yours. You are the one trying to use it here. Second, I don't care about Sorenson. You are doing the same thing you always do. You grab one author and use them like the Bible and ignore the rest. So now we have Sorenson vs Dever. Brilliant.

For everyone else, Finklestein makes some points relevant to determining origins.

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

First,

At the heart of research on the emergence of Israel lies the question of the origin of the people who settled these hill-country sites. If we fail to answer it, we will not be able to solve the riddle of the Israelite settlement.

Next,

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

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

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

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

Let us see what such an inquiry can tell us about the origins of the Israelites.

Only the countermopologists will fail to notice the tentative language being used..."riddle", "suggest", "attempts to reconstruct". Those are words scholars use. We don't see them from countermos. At any rate, we can thank Beastie for inadvertantly opening up a very helpful way to look at the BOM riddle. Substitute a group in Mesoamerica. The problem is the same...who are they and where did they come from. That is where the evidence fails...just as it does with the mysterious hill dwellers. Disagreement is just as strong even though Beastie pretends there is only one way to look at everything. Meanwhile, even a cursory look at more than the scholar of the day uncovers the very theorizing in biblical scholarship that Beastie rejects for BOM scholarship so she can harp on what is not there. Which is why no BOM scholar takes her seriously.

And the beat goes on....

[beastie]

I could do wall banging, too. I have mentioned this but beastie doesn't seem to think it is significant. How many Israelites entered Caanan? Upwards of 2 million. How many Lehites came to mesoAmerica? Upwards of 30. 2 million people ought to leave a big footprint. 30, hardly a trace.

I want to cry. Literally.

Do I really have to repeat myself like this? Instead of finding one more way to rephrase it in the hopes that it finally gets through, I'm just going to cut and paste my former statement:

I have quoted, several times, the portion of the BoM that states Nephi taught skills to his people. His people were already inhabiting an important polity that went on to become THE most important and powerful polity of the region, according to Sorenson. So, for what feels like the umpteenth time, we are not just discussing Nephi and his immediate family and why there is no trace of their Old World material traditions. We are discussing why there is no evidence of these same material traditions Nephi taught to "his people", who then proceeded to become an industrious people, using these same skills.

And beastie said, "There is evidence of metallurgy and advanced pottery but it occurred hundreds of years past the BoM time frame."

If she had read the article I linked as she suggested she had, she would have noted that there were many instances of metalurgy from many years prior to the Lehites landing in the New World. Just a slight comprehension problem there.

Charity,

The evidence of metallurgy - not iron, not iron mirrors which requires no metallurgy - that was cited in the article was from Peru. The evidences that the article share that are from the right time and right place are linguistic evidences, which are actually evidence for the existence of METAL, not metallurgy.

Look at this paragraph:

For years the best evidence suggested that metallurgy was unknown in the Americas until about 900 A.D. Recent studies have altered this view. "Current information," writes one non-LDS scholar, "clearly indicates that by 1000 B.C. the most advanced metallurgy was being practiced in the Cauca Valley of Colombia."1

Peruvians began metallurgy as early as 2000 B.C., and since it is generally accepted that Peru and Mesoamerica were in contact by trading, it seems reasonable that this knowledge was passed on to Mesoamerican peoples. This is especially apparent since at least a dozen pieces of metal have been found in Mesoamerica dating to before 900 AD.2

Now note that they said "it seems reasonable". There is no evidence, they just think it seems "reasonable". This idea that metallurgy existed in Mesoamerica before around 800 AD is not accepted by the scholars in the field.

I mean, come on. If the evidence were really out there, why would apologists be forced to use "metals disintegrate" and "linguistic evidence" for METAL, btw, not METALLURGY?

You ought to be more careful with your own reading before scolding others.

I think it is dishonest for apologists to say things like this:

While critics have assured us that the Book of Mormon's use of iron is anachronistic, recent research refutes this claim. A pottery vessel dating to around 300 A.D., for example, might have been used for smelting. A metallic mass within this vessel contained copper and iron. The archaeologist who made this find has also found a refined piece of iron in an ancient American tomb.6 Even one Book of Mormon critic (who questions the relationship between New World iron and Book of Mormon iron) acknowledges that the Olmecs of Central America (which correspond to logical Jaredite times/places) knew of and used "iron" as evidenced by iron mirrors.7

In 1996, a non-LDS Olmec specialist, Dr. Anne Cyphers, noted that several tons of iron have been excavated from those sites.8 Dr. William Hamblin, in a discussion with John Clark (of the BYU archaeology department) asserts that "a total of 10 tons of iron has been found at San Lorenzo, in several massive hordes, the largest of which was 4 tons. Before the discovery of these hordes, only a few pieces of iron were known. They were discovered by using metal detectors."9

The Olmecs' mining of iron sounds remarkably like the Jaredites': "and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ... iron" (Ether 10:23).

without clarifying that NO metallurgy was involved in this process. It is simple metal working. (see my previous quotes).

People like you read it and think it means that evidence for metallurgy exists in Mesoamerica in the BoM time period. No, it does not.

The article also talks at length about tumbaga without telling you that doesn't resolve ANYTHING. Tumbaga began to be used around the same time metallurgy appeared.

[beastie]

Juliann's earlier statement:

The prevailing view? That Palestine was gradually settled by semi-nomadic groups searching for pasture and land. When they became settled farmers gathered in a tribal league then they began to expand into the cities. In other words, if you actually read a history of the ANE instead of prooftext one book, it is filled with stories much the same....there was not a definable or sudden settlement that could be used as a starting point.

It's the prevailing view for the very reason I already stated.

BTW, Juliann, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how your citation contradicted my statements. You "caught" me, I want to hear how. After making this accusation, you should have the decency to explain your reasoning.

[freakin a man]

The one good thing about archaeology is that it is a field of discovery. What scholars think today might not be correct tomorrow. Case in point was an article from a while back by Kenneth Change "Thin Foils May Have Been Decoration for Rituals Early Metal Use Found in Peru where archaeologists found that some civilizations in the Americans were hammering metals by 1000 B.C.:

We were shocked. I was shocked, says Richard Burger, director of Yale University's Peabody Museum of Natural History. It gives some of the earliest evidence of experimentation with naturally occurring metals in the Americas."..." It shows once again how little we know about the past and how there are surprises under every rock, comments Jeffrey Quilter, director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute in Washington, D.C. â??This is the most secure date we have for early copper working in South America.â?

[charity]

Okay, beastie, since you want to talk about metallurgy versus metal working, let's examine this and see what you want the argument to be.

"Metalworking is the craft and practice of working with metals to create structures or machine parts. The term covers a wide range of work-from large ships, bridges and oil refineries to delicate jewellery and instruments. Consequently, this craft covers a wide range of skills and entails the use of many types of tools."

"Metallurgy is a domain of materials science and of materials engineering that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements, their intermetallic compounds, and their mixtures, which are called alloys."

So metal working is a craft, and metallurgy is a science.

And you want us to think that the referenced materials say that they could work metals, but they couldn't produce metals? How does that work exactly?

Nephi knew that you had to get metal out of ore in order to have something to work with. Did the people in the New World doing metal working not know that? And how did they get the materials to work with?

[beastie]

Charity,

I am really really trying to be patient. Are you reading my posts?

The difference between metallurgy and simple metal working is that metallurgy requires working with metals at a very high, controlled, sustained heat. Simple metal working can be achieved by hammering and working with metal outcrops or meteoric remnants. No metallurgy required.

Please go back and reread some of my posts where I provided extensive commentary on this.

[juliann]

Yes, Juliann, yes. And how did they make that determination???

Because they knew that if a group of foreigners had moved into the area there would be archaeological traces of their existence. Of course the pots are secondary - how many times have I said this on this very thread????? (and why do I even IMAGINE your read my posts??)

Good grief. That is the very argument....that no people which existed in Mesoamerica could possibly be connected to the BOM. How many times does it need to be said to you that it is not the existence it is the origin that matters. That is what they are trying to determine. Where did they come from? Who were they? When did they show up? Why did they show up? How many showed up? Obviously they are there. That is what the countermos can't admit to in BOM scholarship..they were there. That is why these discussions never get anywhere. Will it help if I substitute the words in the Finkelstein quote?

At the heart of research on the emergence of BOM peoples lies the question of the origin of the people who settled these Mesoamerican sites. If we fail to answer it, we will not be able to solve the riddle of the BOM peoples' settlement.

You are going to have to take a position that involves something beyond "is NOT". BOM scholars can go either way...the BOM people weren't traceable because of numbers and assimilation...or they can be found in the existing sites (which haven't even begun to be uncovered). So which is it?

edited for typo

[juliann]

The one good thing about archaeology is that it is a field of discovery. What scholars think today might not be correct tomorrow. Case in point was an article from a while back by Kenneth Change "Thin Foils May Have Been Decoration for Rituals Early Metal Use Found in Peru where archaeologists found that some civilizations in the Americans were hammering metals by 1000 B.C.:

We were shocked. I was shocked, says Richard Burger, director of Yale University's Peabody Museum of Natural History. It gives some of the earliest evidence of experimentation with naturally occurring metals in the Americas."..." It shows once again how little we know about the past and how there are surprises under every rock, comments Jeffrey Quilter, director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute in Washington, D.C. â??This is the most secure date we have for early copper working in South America.â?

We all know the discovering has been done. Yale scholars are stupid. Countermopologists rule. BTW...how many of them admitted that they have been proven wrong about BOM timelines? That used to be a big one.

[beastie]

Good grief. That is the very argument....that no people which exist in Mesoamerica could possibly be connected to the BOM. How many times does it need to be said to you that it is not the existence it is the origin that matters. That is what they are trying to determine. Where did they come from? Who were they? When did they show up? Why did they show up? How many showed up? Obviously they are there. That is what the countermos can't admit to in BOM scholarship..they were there. That is why these discussions never get anywhere. Will it help if I substitute the words in the Finkelstein quote?

What in the heck do you think I'm talking about? Seriously. Tell me what you think I'm saying, because this rebuttal makes absolutely no sense.

BTW, can you name which critics BoM scholars (ie, apologists) do take seriously?

And I'm still waiting for the explanation you owe me.

[beastie]

The one good thing about archaeology is that it is a field of discovery. What scholars think today might not be correct tomorrow. Case in point was an article from a while back by Kenneth Change "Thin Foils May Have Been Decoration for Rituals Early Metal Use Found in Peru where archaeologists found that some civilizations in the Americans were hammering metals by 1000 B.C.:

We were shocked. I was shocked, says Richard Burger, director of Yale University's Peabody Museum of Natural History. It gives some of the earliest evidence of experimentation with naturally occurring metals in the Americas."..." It shows once again how little we know about the past and how there are surprises under every rock, comments Jeffrey Quilter, director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute in Washington, D.C. â??This is the most secure date we have for early copper working in South America.â?

Well, this is certainly the only hope for making a good case for BoM historicity in ancient Mesoamerica. Not only will new discoveries have to be made (which are made all the time) but those same new discoveries will have to completely rewrite all currently accepted knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica.

It's the same old absence of evidence argument. You can cling to it like a life raft for the rest of your life if you'd like.

[charity]

beastie, you obviously did not read the link. Just for you, here is a cut and paste from it:

"For years the best evidence suggested that metallurgy was unknown in the Americas until about 900 A.D. Recent studies have altered this view. "Current information," writes one non-LDS scholar, "clearly indicates that by 1000 B.C. the most advanced metallurgy was being practiced in the Cauca Valley of Colombia."1

Peruvians began metallurgy as early as 2000 B.C., and since it is generally accepted that Peru and Mesoamerica were in contact by trading, it seems reasonable that this knowledge was passed on to Mesoamerican peoples. This is especially apparent since at least a dozen pieces of metal have been found in Mesoamerica dating to before 900 AD.2

Now do you get it?

[juliann]

What in the heck do you think I'm talking about? Seriously. Tell me what you think I'm saying, because this rebuttal makes absolutely no sense.

Haven't you read my posts? I'm trying to be very patient.

As for the rest....

[beastie]

beastie, you obviously did not read the link. Just for you, here is a cut and paste from it:

"For years the best evidence suggested that metallurgy was unknown in the Americas until about 900 A.D. Recent studies have altered this view. "Current information," writes one non-LDS scholar, "clearly indicates that by 1000 B.C. the most advanced metallurgy was being practiced in the Cauca Valley of Colombia."1

Peruvians began metallurgy as early as 2000 B.C., and since it is generally accepted that Peru and Mesoamerica were in contact by trading, it seems reasonable that this knowledge was passed on to Mesoamerican peoples. This is especially apparent since at least a dozen pieces of metal have been found in Mesoamerica dating to before 900 AD.2

Now do you get it?

Charity,

This is the exact same quote I cut and pasted for you.

You do realize that Peru and Colombia are NOT in mesoamerica?

[Zakuska]

A... didn't her post say as much?