Jump to content

Maya City Of Bountiful


Hashbaz

Recommended Posts

I was just reading Rabinal Achi: A Mayan Drama of War and Sacrifice by Dennis Tedlock. The book provides an in depth look at the oldest surviving ritual drama among the Quiche Maya, which predates the Conquest. The drama follows the exploits of a warrior named Cawek of the Forest People and his contentions with the Man of Rabinal. Cawek and his rebel horde went about conquering cities, and one of his stops was at a city called Bountiful, or Pan Cha'lib' in Mayan. It is southwest of the present Quiche town of Jayabaj. Interestingly, it is a few miles east of a city called Earthquake. There is a nice map of it on page 183 - most of the book can be viewed on Google Books, and you can use the search feature to see all the refs to the city of Bountiful.

Link to comment

Interesting parallel, but I have a few thoughts:

The Mayan civilization peaked during 300 A.D. to 900 A.D. during relative peace and no record of a genocide during that time. The Mayan people that are extant today show purely Asiatic DNA and biological markers. This is a well documented fact and the time frame is accurate. Their civilization collapsed only after the arrival of the Spanish.

However, during or around this time the civilization that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon, suffered a genocide where a standing army of 100,000 individuals were slaughtered, and possibly thousands more that were not counted. No evidence of such a genocide during the time frame exists. Ritualized human sacrifice yes, but not in those numbers and not during that time period.

In my mind that makes it hard to reconcile that the civilization science and archeology call the Maya is the same as the Nephite/Lamanite civilization in the Book of Mormon. The archaeological and written record for the Maya don't line up at all during the same time periods, nor show a hint of semitic or Egyptological influence, let alone a religion that has any ethical or ideological connection to Judeo-Christianity/Mormonism. It is off by over a 1000 years, and even then the details don't match.

This is a lethal problem trying to shoehorn the Maya in to the Book of Mormon: the time frame can't budge due to the internal chronology of the Book of Mormon. It has to end at 400 A.D., not 1600 A.D. It has to end roughly 400 A.D. to line up with the internal Biblical chronology, not to mention the whole Gregorian calendar system we use today.

The Maya aren't the Nephites/Lamanites. :P

Link to comment
However, during or around this time the civilization that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon, suffered a genocide where a standing army of 100,000 individuals were slaughtered, and possibly thousands more that were not counted.

The Lamanites, however, were on the ascendancy. Considering the fact that they had co-mingled with the Nephites earlier, I wouldn't be suprised to see paralllels in doctrine and history.

Link to comment

No genetic or biological markers among the Mayans showing any ancestory but Asian????!!!!!! Ignorance must be bliss.

For starters, there are more than just Asiatic markers. Your broad brush does not fit with science. Also, genetic (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and biological (Human Lymphocyte Antigens) show that at least part of the Maya originated in the Middle East. Please to a LITTLE research before regurgitating old anti-Mormon arguments.

Link to comment

The Mayan people that are extant today show purely Asiatic DNA and biological markers.

Chong - what is "purely Asiatic DNA" and what does it look like? Also, how does the DNA of Maya that are "extant today" relate to the DNA of the period being discussed (let's say 600 BCE - 400 CE) - exactly?

Link to comment

No genetic or biological markers among the Mayans showing any ancestory but Asian????!!!!!! Ignorance must be bliss.

For starters, there are more than just Asiatic markers. Your broad brush does not fit with science. Also, genetic (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and biological (Human Lymphocyte Antigens) show that at least part of the Maya originated in the Middle East. Please to a LITTLE research before regurgitating old anti-Mormon arguments.

And you should stop regurgitating tired (and disproven) apologetic arguments.

I suppose you are referring to Haplogroup X. And yes, there is marker amongst some populations of Amerindians.

Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas.[1] Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a major haplogroup in northeastern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types. It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area -- in North America among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%â??13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakima (5%), and in South America among the Yanomami people (12%) in eight villages in Roraima in northwestern Brazil.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA))

None of the above are the Maya, nor even close to where the Maya lived. Haplogroup X does not exist in their genetic pool, either today or historically.

However, there are only a few middle eastern groups it appears in, none of which would be consistent with the Book of Mormon. The only middle eastern group that shares Haplogroup X (that I know of) are ethnic turks and modern ethnic Israelis. It is more commonly associated with Italians, Spainards, Finns and Bulgarians, none of which are even remotely related to ancinet Hebrews / the lineage of Joseph.

Some apologists have tried to to associate various Amerindian civilizations, such as the Maya, with the Nephites, but the dates don't match up. The Maya were established in the Americas before the Book of Mormon says Lehi arrived, they are not Hebrews from Jerusalem, and their language, which has been extensively studied, is not related to Hebrew or Egyptian. And of course, they did not cultivate Old-World crops, smelt iron, have horse-drawn chariots, or any other of dozens of cultural attributes described in the Book of Mormon. There is hardly any group of people on Earth that are more unlike the the Nephites of the Book of Mormon than the Maya.

Duwayne R. Andersons Farewell to Eden
Link to comment

I skipped over some of your post. No genocide, wrong. Archaeology and written record, of course they do, it's calle pre-Classical Maya. Semitic influence, wrong again. Read Brian Stubbs work. Uto-Aztecan DOES go into BOM areas, which has origins in both Hebrew and Egyptian. Christianity, well that's to be expected. The BOM tells us that their religion was destroyed. How could it exist after that? Ending at 400 AD. Did all the BOM peoples cease to exist at 400 AD? If your actually read the BOM you will find otherwise. ONE group was destroyed.

Thanks again for you uninformed opinion

If Duwayne Anderson said it, it MUST be doctrine.

Link to comment

I skipped over some of your post. No genocide, wrong.

CFR for a 100,000+ standing Army annihilation in Mayan culture around 400 B.C. The expansion of militarism and the conquest of other smaller surrounding states didn't happen until the post-classical period. The time frame is still off.

Archaeology and written record, of course they do, it's calle pre-Classical Maya. Semitic influence, wrong again. Read Brian Stubbs work. Uto-Aztecan DOES go into BOM areas, which has origins in both Hebrew and Egyptian.

Superb. Uto-Aztecan is unrelated to Mayan languages or Mayan culture. Try again.

Christianity, well that's to be expected. The BOM tells us that their religion was destroyed. How could it exist after that? Ending at 400 AD. Did all the BOM peoples cease to exist at 400 AD?

Even after a civilization is completely annihilated, their traces remain. A proto-Christian religion that existed for 1000 years can't vanish in to thin air, even if every person is killed.

If your actually read the BOM you will find otherwise. ONE group was destroyed.

Thanks again for you uninformed opinion

I've read it completely over 11 times, but thank you. I'm aware the arguemtn can be made that the Mayans are a remnant of the Lamanites. Fair enough, but the Mayans still bear no resemblance to a civilization that would have descended from Nephites/Lamanites. They still have nothing in common.

If Duwayne Anderson said it, it MUST be doctrine.

Who said anything about doctrine? We are discussing archeology. And if you have a specific argument you would like to bring up, by all means do. But spare us the sarcastic character assassination.

Link to comment

This is a lethal problem trying to shoehorn the Maya in to the Book of Mormon: the time frame can't budge due to the internal chronology of the Book of Mormon. It has to end at 400 A.D., not 1600 A.D. It has to end roughly 400 A.D. to line up with the internal Biblical chronology, not to mention the whole Gregorian calendar system we use today.

Your "lethal problem" needs some correction. The Maya were around by at least 600 B.C., with antecedents even earlier. They are still living. Your suggestion that they ended in 1600 is just as incorrect as the assumption that the Book of Mormon requires that they be gone by A.D. 400.

As for the general time periods, they actually do fit very well with the Book of Mormon, including the development of particular cultural traits at the same time as we see them in the Book of Mormon and an increasing emphasis on warfare in the Book of Mormon at the same period when it was developingin that region.

I agree that the Maya were not Nephites. I certainly see them as falling under the great label "Lamanite" that the text uses for non-Nephite.

Link to comment

CFR for a 100,000+ standing Army annihilation in Mayan culture around 400 B.C. The expansion of militarism and the conquest of other smaller surrounding states didn't happen until the post-classical period. The time frame is still off.

You seem to be reading earlier literature. More recent literature on the subject clearly indicates warfare in the middle and late Preclassic, which are Book of Mormon times. The time frame is actually dead on. Particularly relevant is Mormon's claim of changes in the nature of warfare during his tenure as general - which corresponds to the changes seen in the archaeological record of the Teotihuacano expansion in that area, known to have begun by at least A.D. 378.

Superb. Uto-Aztecan is unrelated to Mayan languages or Mayan culture. Try again.

Here I agree with you. Uto-Aztecan does not even show up in the Mesoamerican region until around A.D. 900. Personally, I am not a fan of the Uto-Aztecan/Hebrew connection.

Even after a civilization is completely annihilated, their traces remain. A proto-Christian religion that existed for 1000 years can't vanish in to thin air, even if every person is killed.

You are correct that people leave traces. However, your assertion that a proto-Christian religion would have left discernible traces is fascinating. Please tell me what one looked like? What iconography would they have used? What we know as Christian iconography is derived from Greek and Roman imagery from a much later period, so it couldn't be the same as Old World Christianity. In the particular region where scholars believe the Book of Mormon took place, it is remarkably aniconic. So - what would it look like so I can tell you if it is there?

the Mayans still bear no resemblance to a civilization that would have descended from Nephites/Lamanites. They still have nothing in common

Here I disagree completely. I am currently working with someone who has excellent insights into aspects of Maya culture that I believe provide an explanation for the nature of Nephite apostasy. With his information, I suggest that we can demonstrate precisely how the Maya would be "descended' from Nephites and Lamanites. Of course, I must add that I never consider the Maya coterminus with Nephites nor uniquely genetically related to Laman and Lemuel. Things were much more complicated than that simplistic picture.

Link to comment
Some apologists have tried to to associate various Amerindian civilizations, such as the Maya, with the Nephites, but the dates don't match up. The Maya were established in the Americas before the Book of Mormon says Lehi arrived, they are not Hebrews from Jerusalem, and their language, which has been extensively studied, is not related to Hebrew or Egyptian. And of course, they did not cultivate Old-World crops, smelt iron, have horse-drawn chariots, or any other of dozens of cultural attributes described in the Book of Mormon. There is hardly any group of people on Earth that are more unlike the the Nephites of the Book of Mormon than the Maya.

Duwayne R. Andersons Farewell to Eden

Dwayne Anderson knows the answer, as we have had many discussions on this issue. The prob with Dwayne is that he is totally deaf to any other voice but his own.

1. The BOM does not say that the Maya are Nephites, nor do myself or any other apologist with which I am familiar.

The actual relationship between the Maya and the Nephites/Lamanites is still a matter of discussion. A recent post gave a link which demonstrated that the Maya were not the only group living in mesoamerica.

2. The BOM makes it clear that people were already living in America when Lehi landed.

3. The BOM does not claim that the Lamanites were made up of only the descendants of Lehi. It was used as a broad term to mean anyone who were not Nephites, which included rebel Nephites and outsiders.

Dwayne, a bitter ex-Mormon, is addressing himself to the uninformed, and I find it interesting that you quote him as an authoritative source.

Link to comment

Chong,

I believe Brant answered your questions. I just have a few things to add. While most of Uto-Aztecan is north of BOM lands, it DOES touch in the area. Please study up on it to have an informed opinion. I was not, however, aware that it only reached that area until 900 AD. I will have to look into that.

Personally, I don't believe all the Maya were part of the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations, but portions were.

Character assasination??? Sarcasm yes, but character assasination?? If I were to say that you shouldn't listen to him because of his big nose with a large mole on it, and several large dark hairs growing from it, as well as his pathetic lies, his lifestyle, and the commandments he doesn't keep, THAT would be character assasination. Not what I said. He is sure to have his opinion, but I could cut and paste the opinion of those who think there is 100% evidence for the BOM, would that make it true??

I am curious why you've read the BOM so many times. Are you looking to prove it false?

ps it is spelled archaeology, not archeology

Link to comment

There were plenty of non-Maya people living in the Maya area (and plenty of Maya lived in non-Maya cities - Teotihuacan had its own Maya barrio). Ancient Mesoamerica was a wonderfully multicultural environment. Larry Poulson posted a link awhile ago to an article describing non-Maya city that was discovered in the Motagua river area; likewise, the city Bountiful that I mentioned in the original post was along the Motagua. The text of Rabinal Achi does not specify that Bountiful was a Maya city - my original post title should have been more clear. Just because a Maya warrior conquered it, doesn't make it a Maya city. There is another post going about Fire is Born from Teotihuacan and his conquering of Maya cities. He was clearly not Maya. What no one has commented on yet is the actual content of my original post. I have read posts on this board that ask why no cities in ancient Mesoamerica bear the names of those in the Book of Mormon. I have supplied one, and yet no one has seen fit to comment on it.

Link to comment

There were plenty of non-Maya people living in the Maya area (and plenty of Maya lived in non-Maya cities - Teotihuacan had its own Maya barrio). Ancient Mesoamerica was a wonderfully multicultural environment. Larry Poulson posted a link awhile ago to an article describing non-Maya city that was discovered in the Motagua river area; likewise, the city Bountiful that I mentioned in the original post was along the Motagua. The text of Rabinal Achi does not specify that Bountiful was a Maya city - my original post title should have been more clear. Just because a Maya warrior conquered it, doesn't make it a Maya city. There is another post going about Fire is Born from Teotihuacan and his conquering of Maya cities. He was clearly not Maya. What no one has commented on yet is the actual content of my original post. I have read posts on this board that ask why no cities in ancient Mesoamerica bear the names of those in the Book of Mormon. I have supplied one, and yet no one has seen fit to comment on it.

Small correction. If you are thinking of Tamtoc, it is in San Lois Potosi a long ways north from the Motagoa river.

Although the Nahuatl language did not reach the Maya area until about 900 CE, it is important to remember that when new cultures move into an area they tend to translate names of local features into there own language, as well as, name similar features with names used in their previous location. For example New York is named after the city of York in England and the Dutch called it New Amsterdam after a city in the Netherlands. In the BofM we find the name Bountiful given to any area that was full of natural resources. It is not surprizing to find other cultures doing the same.

When people demand that Book of Mormon names should be found in ancient precolumbian records they are ignoring the probability that these cultures may have had different names for the same feature or area.

An example of this phenomena is the "wilderness of Hermounts" in the Book of Mormon that, according to the text, was an area of wild beasts. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is Sorenson's narrow neck and is located geographically according to his model, where one would expect to find the wilderness of Hermounts. Tehuantepec is a Nahuatl word which means hill of the wild beast.

Ancient as well as modern cultures names for cities are based on numerous cultural and geographic reasons. For example Salt Lake City and Riverside are named for their geographic locations. Most BofM cities were named after people. With the death of the BofM culture there is little or no reason to expect these names to survive or for that matter to expect other cultures to have even used the same names for these cities. In the case of geographic features there is some hope to expect the names to survive although they will probably be translated into the language of the surviving culture.

Larry P

Link to comment

An ancient Mayan text mentions a city named Bountiful?

This is a big deal.

Period.

How many times have I heard that the only evidence that would be acceptable is a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla."

Well it looks like that sign has been found for "Bountiful." And it was found in the right location.

So let's not try to side-step the issue with meaningless distractions.

Is this or is this not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document?

Yes or no.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I just ordered the book from Amazon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Link to comment

Is this or is this not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document?

Yes or no.

Yes for me. It would be silly that it is not a point for the Bom. However ther will people out there that try to argue the point.

Link to comment

An ancient Mayan text mentions a city named Bountiful?

This is a big deal.

Period.

How many times have I heard that the only evidence that would be acceptable is a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla."

Well it looks like that sign has been found for "Bountiful." And it was found in the right location.

So let's not try to side-step the issue with meaningless distractions.

Is this or is this not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document?

Yes or no.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I just ordered the book from Amazon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

(T-Shirt, pretending to be a Mormon critic):

This is laughable. Can you show me a city in the Book of Mormon named, "Earthquake"? If you can't then this proves to be nothing more than a coincidence.

Link to comment

(T-Shirt, pretending to be a Mormon critic):

This is laughable. Can you show me a city in the Book of Mormon named, "Earthquake"? If you can't then this proves to be nothing more than a coincidence.

Kinda intersting here. What would be the nephite word for "earthquake" if it wasnt translated into english?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...