Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[SolarPowered]

I picked up a discard from our ward library, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, by Milton R. Hunter, Deseret Book Company, 1956.

Right there on page 6 is a photo of a carving on the wall of the Temple of the Plaques at Chich

[MatthewG]

I picked up a discard from our ward library, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, by Milton R. Hunter, Deseret Book Company, 1956.

Right there on page 6 is a photo of a carving on the wall of the Temple of the Plaques at Chich

[smac97]

Is this it?

http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx

See also here:

http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/pdf/Horses%20and%20BM.pdf

And here:

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

See also here:

I think the picture you have in mind has been mentioned or referenced. Just not specifically.

-Smac

[John Williams]

Is this it?

http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx

The only citation of this appears to be Milton Hunter. A while back, someone wrote that it was actually a damaged carving of a jaguar-serpent figure, but then no other citations about that are available. Given that no one else seems to know anything about it, it might be a good idea to reserve judgment.

[SolarPowered]

Is this it?

http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx

Yes, that's it! Thanks!

[smac97]

A few references on this board to this carving:

Here.

Here

There are others. Just do a search for "Itza" and you'll find 'em.

-Smac

[SolarPowered]

The only citation of this appears to be Milton Hunter. A while back, someone wrote that it was actually a damaged carving of a jaguar-serpent figure, but then no other citations about that are available. Given that no one else seems to know anything about it, it might be a good idea to reserve judgment.

Da waa???

It's a horse. At the very least, it's an animal that your "reasonable Nephite" could reasonably have called a "horse." You don't need a platoon of "experts" to tell you that--any kindergartener call see that it's a horse.

Sheesh.

[SolarPowered]

Spencer,

Thanks for all the links. It is clear that there is a great deal of Precolumbian horse art. Enough that it would seem that the horse question is a settled issue. (But then, nothing is ever settled with some people, is it? )

[John Williams]

Da waa???

It's a horse. At the very least, it's an animal that your "reasonable Nephite" could reasonably have called a "horse." You don't need a platoon of "experts" to tell you that--any kindergartener call see that it's a horse.

Sheesh.

So, it looks like a horse to an average kindergartner. But there's no context, no corroboration, just a photo from a 1958 book from a Mormon GA. If that works for you, fine. Seems just a tad sketchy to be making claims of precolumbian horses.

[SolarPowered]

But there's no context, no corroboration, just a photo from a 1958 book from a Mormon GA.

Well, no. There are other photos, as linked by Mr. smac97. Are you attempting to claim that the photos are forgeries? Is there something wrong with books published in "1958 (sic)." Or books published in 1956? Chich

[John Williams]

Well, no. There are other photos, as linked by Mr. smac97. Are you attempting to claim that the photos are forgeries? Is there something wrong with books published in "1958 (sic)." Or books published in 1956? Chich

[BCSpace]

Is this it?

http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx

At first glance, it DOES look like a horse. However, is the other figure riding it or standing beside it? It looks to me like it's standing beside it, making the horse about large dog size. If he's riding it, then his legs are cut off/not shown. Imho.

[Brant Gardner]

I honestly can't tell what it is. The pictures are not good enough for me to tell the details of the man standing next to it and the figure is in the background. From experience working with Mesoamerican art, I am reluctant to declare anything without much better information.

Of course, it could be a tapir <grin>.

[SolarPowered]

It's one photo, by one Otto Done, for the Improvement Era. And, no it doesn't look like a man on a horse. At least not to everyone.

Again, no, it's not "one photo." Besides that photo, there is also the photo taken for Dr. Hunter's book, and the various photos linked by smac97.

And so what if it were "one photo"--are you claiming that it's a forgery? Are you claiming that they are all forgeries?

[John Williams]

Again, no, it's not "one photo." Besides that photo, there is also the photo taken for Dr. Hunter's book, and the various photos linked by smac97.

The photos linked were the same one shown on different web pages, apparently.

And so what if it were "one photo"--are you claiming that it's a forgery? Are you claiming that they are all forgeries?

Nope. No claim. It's just not much to go on: one photo, removed from its context, with no corroboration, and that doesn't necessarily look like a man on a horse.

[SolarPowered]

The photos linked were the same one shown on different web pages, apparently.

This one: http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx, is a different photo than the one in Dr. Hunter's book. As are the two smaller pictures at the bottom of Spencer's post.

It's just not much to go on:

That sounds like, "Dang! How do I weasel out of an actual picture that's so obvious the even a kindergartener can see that it's a horse!"

one photo

Several photos, from different sources.

removed from its context,

I gave the context--It is on the wall of the Temple of the Plaques at Chich

[cdowis]

So, it looks like a horse to an average kindergartner. But there's no context, no corroboration, just a photo from a 1958 book from a Mormon GA. If that works for you, fine. Seems just a tad sketchy to be making claims of precolumbian horses.

Now that the whole "BOM and DNA" argument has collapsed, the antis go to their old fallback position of "no precolumbian horses".

If that works for you, fine.

[John Williams]

Now that the whole "BOM and DNA" argument has collapsed, the antis go to their old fallback position of "no precolumbian horses".

If that works for you, fine.

Who is saying "no precolumbian horses"? It's simply a prudent and wise course of action to be careful about accepting such sketchy evidence as the Done photo. And why are you bringing the DNA argument into this, unless you have a specific statement from a specific person in mind?

[John Williams]

This one: http://www.cumoraharchive.com/Discussion/p.../picture48.aspx, is a different photo than the one in Dr. Hunter's book. As are the two smaller pictures at the bottom of Spencer's post.

That sounds like, "Dang! How do I weasel out of an actual picture that's so obvious the even a kindergartener can see that it's a horse!"

Several photos, from different sources.

I gave the context--It is on the wall of the Temple of the Plaques at Chich

[John Williams]

I honestly can't tell what it is. The pictures are not good enough for me to tell the details of the man standing next to it and the figure is in the background. From experience working with Mesoamerican art, I am reluctant to declare anything without much better information.

Of course, it could be a tapir <grin>.

Brant,

Are you an anti-Mormon now?

Apparently, reserving judgment is what counts these days.

[jonzlaw]

One interesting aspect to the BOM horses quandry that I have yet to see addressed is as follows:

The LDS church believes - contrary to virtually all non-LDS archeologists - that the horse did in fact exist in the Americas pre-Columbus. Whether this is true or not, virtually all LDS and non-LDS would agree that when the Spaniards arrived in America in the 1500s, there were in fact no horses here. Also, as noted in 3 Ne. 3:22, 3 Ne. 4:4, and 3 Ne. 6:1, the BOM places horses in the Americas as late as AD 17, AD 19, and AD 26, respectively.

So, my question is, where did all the horses go for 1500 years?

And, given the relatively recent existence of horses in the Americas per the BOM, why no fossil record?

Btw, have none of the non-LDS archeologists contemplated the artwork that is the subject of this thread in the past 60 years?

[ebeddoulos]

It's a carving of a man and a horse. (emphasis added)

And, no it doesn't look like a man on a horse. (emphasis added)

He never said never said the man was on the horse only that the carving contained both.

I also find it quite telling that there is no argument that it is a man.

[John Williams]

He never said never said the man was on the horse only that the carving contained both.

I also find it quite telling that there is no argument that it is a man.

Honestly, it isn't all that clear that there's a man. There appears to be a human figure next to a four-legged creature, but both of those are just guesses. But it you want to quibble about and or on, go ahead. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Brant is right: there's not enough to go on to say for sure what it is.

[Rommelator]

The LDS church believes - contrary to virtually all non-LDS archeologists - that the horse did in fact exist in the Americas pre-Columbus.

Perhaps, but what does it matter if we disagree with non-LDS archaeologists? If there were pre-Columbian horses, then it does not matter who (be they LDS or non-LDS) might believe there were horses before Columbus. Hugh Nibley once said:

"What on earth have a man's name, degree, academic position, and, of all things, opinions to do with whether a thing is true or not?"

I am curious as to why you think that somehow non-LDS archaeologists are superior to LDS archaeologists. Why does their opinion hold more weight? Should we not analyze arguments based on evidence and logic, regardless of who is presenting the facts?

Whether this is true or not, virtually all LDS and non-LDS would agree that when the Spaniards arrived in America in the 1500s, there were in fact no horses here.

Your point is? Scholars all agreed that the sun rotated around the earth and that the earth was flat. Just because scholars agree, that does not mean that they are right. Also, you are incorrect to suggest that there were no horses in the Americas before Columbus. Pre-historic horse once roamed the Americas long before Columbus, or Lehi, for that matter, ever arrived.

So, my question is, where did all the horses go for 1500 years?

Possibly the same place that the dinosaurs all went: Extinct.

And, given the relatively recent existence of horses in the Americas per the BOM, why no fossil record?

Because we have not been able to conclusively identify such. There are some hints here or there, but nothing conclusive.

Remember, my dear jonzlaw, that to suggest that horses could not have existed before Columbus because we have no evidence or samples of such is one giant fallacious argumentum ex silencio or argument from silence. I know that anti-Mormons hate to hear this and simply dismiss it as a Mormon escape, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Btw, have none of the non-LDS archeologists contemplated the artwork that is the subject of this thread in the past 60 years?

I am not sure. Maybe someone knows. I would be interested to find out what other super non-biased, impartial, objective and totally scientific non-LDS experts say on this. Surely they won't let any bias get in their way like those hacks at BYU. And, after all, only non-LDS scholars' words counts, right?

[Brant Gardner]

The LDS church believes - contrary to virtually all non-LDS archeologists - that the horse did in fact exist in the Americas pre-Columbus.

You are overly generous with your attribution. The "LDS church" is a collection of individuals, and while some believe that there were horses, others are either not sure or are still open to the changing nature of the evidence. The blanket statement is simply inapplicable.

Whether this is true or not, virtually all LDS and non-LDS would agree that when the Spaniards arrived in America in the 1500s, there were in fact no horses here.

Perhaps. The evidence is really kind of thin. There certainly weren't very many, if any.

Also, as noted in 3 Ne. 3:22, 3 Ne. 4:4, and 3 Ne. 6:1, the BOM places horses in the Americas as late as AD 17, AD 19, and AD 26, respectively.

Please remember that there are issues of translation that make such a firm declaration that "a horse is a horse" more questionable (and the reason that you will find different voices among members of the LDS church).

So, my question is, where did all the horses go for 1500 years?

Actually, an interesting question that probably hasn't had enough research done on it to be conclusive. I am remembering some potentially anomalous DNA in the Southwestern wild horses that appears to be unrelated to the Spanish horses (though certainly there are connections to the Spanish horses). I didn't read the research, so I am not sure on that one.

I am on firmer ground with remains of horse bones found in situ in Precolumbian Mesoamerican sites. They have been tested and declared both authentic and pre-contact. I heard about the results of the study a year ago, to my knowledge is hasn't been published. There have been anomalous horse bones in different locations that weren't properly examined, because "everyone knew" that they shouldn't be there.

The result of all of this is that we really should excercise caution on this topic. Blanket statements about what all LDS believe are incorrect, and there is evidence from the world of science that doesn't fit the blanket assertion that there were no horses. Caution is a better position.