Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[MormonMason]

Sure, these little discoveries nibble tantalizingly around the edges, but so far, what is known about Mesoamerica is almost nothing like the world described in the Book of Mormon.

??? You mean like people living in wooden housing, wars of mass extermination, entire villages wiped out by opposing enemies, fortifications, cement structures, swords capable of cutting off arms in a single stroke and stainable with blood, human sacrifices, idolatry, cities and villages, stone stele, awareness of the sacrificing of blood and stuff like that? No, I suppose that that does not sound like Mesoamerica to me, either.

[John Williams]

??? You mean like people living in wooden housing, wars of mass extermination, entire villages wiped out by opposing enemies, fortifications, cement structures, swords capable of cutting off arms in a single stroke and stainable with blood, human sacrifices, idolatry, cities and villages, stone stele, awareness of the sacrificing of blood and stuff like that? No, I suppose that that does not sound like Mesoamerica to me.

Funny, a post I made more than a year ago dealt with these very issues and how they were completely consistent with early 19th-century notions of who the Native Americans were. Heck, even John Clark backed off from these "bullseyes." Maybe you aren't familiar with current scholarship.

[Benjamin McGuire]

John W writes:

Of course. But if this is a loose translation, then the connection between horses, chariots, and conveyance is Joseph's, right?

And of course, if its a tight translation, then Joseph has nothing to do with it.

It is interesting that there has been several comments in this thread about the nature of a divinely inspired translation - but this is a very interesting problem that very few people ever think through. Meaning - when you read a text - comes from the reader, not the text itself. Texts don't really mean anything until you read them. They just sit there. And of course the English language itself is far from perfect. So perhaps if God were to give us a perfect language, then he could produce a perfect translation - but in this case, that seems quite impossible - not, of course, because of any shortcoming on the part of God, but because, for the end product to be useful at all, it would have to be flawed (i.e. written in a language which itself is full of uncertainty and ambiguity).

And of course this doesn't start to address the further issue that if the text is taken as a real history of sorts, then we have Mormon who is reading ancient texts (several hundred years older than he is), and translating them into the written language which he uses for the gold plates. And then there is the Joseph Smith issue - which for the critics is a rather difficult hurdle to deal with. I have yet to see any romantic fiction of the early 19th century in which indians don't explicitly uses horses for all sorts of things - they ride them, they fight from horseback, and so on. And the Book of Mormon does none of this. The best argument that the critic has is right here - and its clearly ambiguous. And that in and of itself is an interesting point to make.

But, I think that without actually taking the time to talk about what a hypothetical translation - made by God - would actually look like, using that idea to attack interpretations of the Book of Mormon is generally pointless. Those arguments mean absolutely nothing.

Ben

[JAHS]

This is a long thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned. There is an interesting news article about the discovery of some hores bones at the following site

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/17...2_057_16_05.txt

Don't know if it means much, since the bones don't date anywhere near BOM times but it does show that we are discovering new and unexpected things as time goes on.

[John Williams]

But, I think that without actually taking the time to talk about what a hypothetical translation - made by God - would actually look like, using that idea to attack interpretations of the Book of Mormon is generally pointless. Those arguments mean absolutely nothing.

Ben

As you say, text is nothing until it is read, and reading is a creative act that brings all of our personal experience, biases, and expectations to the text. The great thing about applying a postmodern approach to the Book of Mormon is that the book need not meet any expectations at all and is free to be rewritten at will (even Joseph Smith seems to have recognized that). Thus, in the absence of meaning, reading is a solitary act, and it stands to reason that a testimony that the text is "true" in some sense would also be solitary and subjective.

But then that opens up a whole other set of questions: if the text has meaning only in a subjective sense, and a testimony is likewise subjective, then what does that mean about the text being "true"? All readings, then, must be equally true, as long as the spirit whispers. Thus, an FLDS reading of scripture is as true as yours.

In the end, all that can be said is "my reading of this book is true for me."

[Zakuska]

This is a long thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned. There is an interesting news article about the discovery of some hores bones at the following site

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/17...2_057_16_05.txt

Don't know if it means much, since the bones don't date anywhere near BOM times but it does show that we are discovering new and unexpected things as time goes on.

Which gives creedance to what Brant was saying earlier. They never DID go completely extinct. While their Numbers dwindled they never did die out complelelty.

Possible explanations

The radiocarbon date, if corroborated by more elaborate tests, may be remarkable since North American horses were thought to have been extinct by the late Pleistocene era more than 10,000 years ago, said Bradford Riney, a paleontology specialist with the San Diego Natural History Museum.

"That would make (the site) extremely important," he said Thursday. "It would be an early example of domestication."

Alternately, Mojado postulated that the horses may have been Spanish in origin, perhaps from an ill-fated exploration that never returned and so was lost to history. Perhaps the lost Spanish explorers offered the horses and donkey to the American Indians as a gift, Mojado said.

"There were no horses here then," he said. "They didn't know what a horse or a donkey was. They would have seen them as big deer or antelope."

As a gift, and an unusual gift at that, the animals most certainly would have been revered, which could explain why they were buried high on a hill in the same way some Indians buried their own, Mojado said.

One horse and the donkey appear to have been buried ritualistically with their heads to the north, faces to the left, and their bodies "flexed" in the fetal position, an American Indian method of burial. The newly discovered horse, its ocher-colored bones already fading to yellow from exposure to sun and air, was not similarly posed.

Researchers said they know horses were deliberately buried because they can see definite lines where someone cut into the shell layers to dig a burial pit.

"I've been doing this for 16 years and I've never seen anything like it," Tift said.

The bones show no signs of cutting, splitting or crushing that would indicate a violent death, Piek said. Researchers see no signs the horses were butchered for meat.

[SolarPowered]

Which gives creedance to what Brant was saying earlier. They never DID go completely extinct. While their Numbers dwindled they never did die out complelelty.

Well, not really. This is a post-Columbian site, so the "Occam's Razor" explanation is that these are European animals brought over by the Spanish.

Now, if they find something a couple hundred years older...

[Zakuska]

Well, not really. This is a post-Columbian site, so the "Occam's Razor" explanation is that these are European animals brought over by the Spanish.

Now, if they find something a couple hundred years older...

Except as the article says... Spanish/Europeans shod their horses and these horses where never shod.

The bones of the horses and the donkey showed no signs of having been shod, an indicator that the horses were not brought by the Spanish, who fitted their horses with iron shoes, said Larry Tift, a researcher with Gallegos.

[cdowis]

Sure, these little discoveries nibble tantalizingly around the edges, but so far, what is known about Mesoamerica is almost nothing like the world described in the Book of Mormon.

An interesting phrase, "what is known" -- about the preclassic maya. I assume you are aware of the state of archeology in mesoamerica, are you not, specifically of preclassic maya. The loss of written records, many sites which have not been excavated, the terrain -- mountains, wilderness rainforest. Literally hundreds of sites still not yet excavated.

Another interesting phrase is "almost nothing like". The parallels which have been found are rather striking -- human sacrifice, towers used in religious ceremonies, certain names, the hierarchy of the kingship among the mayans (main monarch with minor monarchs), the technology such as calendars, written books (codex), etc. The population of this region now fits closely to what the BOM tells us. The recent discovery of a major change in the burial practices which had been followed for over a thousand years.

I find more than "nibbles", but I guess that depends upon your point of view.

[SolarPowered]

Except as the article says... Spanish/Europeans shoe'd their horses and these horses where never shoe'd.

Perhaps I should have explicitly included "descendants of" before "European animals." I thought it was obvious that the term "European animals" includes both the first-generation seed stock physically brought over by the Spanish, and their descendants of however many generations.

[Zakuska]

Perhaps I should have explicitly included "descendants of" before "European animals." I thought it was obvious that the term "European animals" includes both the first-generation seed stock physically brought over by the Spanish, and their descendants of however many generations.

I fail to see how these can be "descdants" of European animals since the site is pre-columbian. It has been inhabited by Humans for over 5000 years. The Horses are 300 years older than any recorded European contact with the new world.

[SolarPowered]

I fail to see how these can be "descdants" of European animals since the site is pre-columbian. It has been inhabited by Humans for over 5000 years. The Horses are 300 years older than any recorded European contact with the new world.

Not hardly--according to the article, the 1-sigma C14 dating of the horse is between 1625 and 1705.

[Zakuska]

Not hardly--according to the article, the 1-sigma C14 dating of the horse is between 1625 and 1705.

Correct you are...

CARLSBAD ---- Archaeologists working against the clock in Carlsbad have unearthed another nearly intact skeleton of a horse that may have lived and died 50 years before the Spanish began their conquest of California.

Radiocarbon dating of 340 years, plus or minus 40 years, puts the death of the horse sometime between 1625 and 1705, Mojado said. Therefore, the horses died at least 50 years before San Diego Mission de Alcala, the first of the California missions, was founded in 1769. The other horse and the burro were buried at the same level, suggesting that they were buried about the same time.

[peeps]

I fail to see how these can be "descdants" of European animals since the site is pre-columbian. It has been inhabited by Humans for over 5000 years. The Horses are 300 years older than any recorded European contact with the new world.

Really?

The article says:

Radiocarbon dating of 340 years, plus or minus 40 years, puts the death of the horse sometime between 1625 and 1705, Mojado said.

Pre-columbian covers the time period before 1492-ish (late 15th century). Now my math may be rusty, but if my calculations are right, 1492 comes before 1625.

And, note that Spanish exploration of California began quite early:

Long before settlement of Jamestown in 1607, Spanish explorers had sailed the California coast and recorded its grace and elegance. Francisco Ulloa charted the Gulf of California in 1539. He was quickly followed by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo who, in 1542, discovered San Diego Bay and sailed on to explore California's north coast. In 1595, Sebastian Cermeho, Captain of the Manila Galleon, sailed along the California coast, adding to Cabrillo's lucid account. Juan Vizcaino also charted the California coast in 1602, giving Spanish names to prominent features and was the first to describe the beauty of Monterey Bay.

[Zakuska]

peeps and solarpowerd both misread me... And I mispoke.

I fail to see how these can be "descdants" of European animals since the site is pre-columbian. It has been inhabited by Humans for over 5000 years. The Horses are 300 years older than any recorded European contact with the new world.

The Site is pre-columbian but the horses could very well be of european stock. Yet they were not shod. so that still leads to questions.

[SolarPowered]

The Spanish landed in Mexico in 1519. Pensacola, Florida was established in 1559. The Plymouth colony was established in 1620. There was more than plenty of time for horses to have wandered to California and died in 1665 +/-40.

Edit: I see that there have been several posts while I was researching this...

[SolarPowered]

Yet they were not shod. so that still leads to questions.

Those questions are easily answered, though. There certainly were feral horses on this continent many decades before these animals died. Feral animals normally are unshod.

Edit: And according to peeps' post, there was the possibility of feral horses being released in California at least as early as 1542.

[John Williams]

Sorry you have failed to get me interested in this tired out argument. So there is not conclusive evidence of pre columbian horses, I guess that JS did get it wrong and the BoM is now false right??? I mean after all that is what you are getting at. Right?

No, not at all. Lack of evidence of non-Pleistocene horses is not a magic bullet that "proves" the BoM false. It's just a little tiring to have these cut-and-paste jobs thrown out as some sort of conclusive evidence.

[John Williams]

I find more than "nibbles", but I guess that depends upon your point of view.

Sure, that stands to reason. Of course, people can re-evaluate the evidence and reach vastly different conclusions than their previous ones. If you're trying to say that those who don't see things the way you do are predisposed not to see things, you'd have a hard time making that case.

[cdowis]

Sure, that stands to reason. Of course, people can re-evaluate the evidence and reach vastly different conclusions than their previous ones. If you're trying to say that those who don't see things the way you do are predisposed not to see things, you'd have a hard time making that case.

I was saying that you were exaggerating.

Just a simple, "you don't see it, but I do."

[Zakuska]

Those questions are easily answered, though. There certainly were feral horses on this continent many decades before these animals died. Feral animals normally are unshod.

Edit: And according to peeps' post, there was the possibility of feral horses being released in California at least as early as 1542.

The More I look into this the more difficult it seems to become... I mean 10000 years worth of dirt isn't very thick. So what exactly would constitute findind the BOM animals we are talking about? If we find a buro more or less on the surface assumption is it is Spanish. Where is the event horizon?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, not at all. Lack of evidence of non-Pleistocene horses is not a magic bullet that "proves" the BoM false. It's just a little tiring to have these cut-and-paste jobs thrown out as some sort of conclusive evidence.

Sweet.

[SolarPowered]

The More I look into this the more difficult it seems to become... I mean 10000 years worth of dirt isn't very thick. So what exactly would constitute findind the BOM animals we are talking about? If we find a buro more or less on the surface assumption is it is Spanish. Where is the event horizon?

In this particular case, they've C14 dated the horse, so that's how they know. In general, though, that's exactly the problem that John Clark (IIRC) speaks of--When archaeologists find horse bones, they say, "Oh, this is post-Columbian--something's been screwing with my site", and proceed to throw them away as contamination. It's the same thing that they'd do if they found a plastic soda bottle in the bottom of their hole--they already "know" that it's modern, so why waste money running the carbon?

I believe FARMS has an ongoing project where they are trying to find and date some of these "spurious" horse remains.

[John Williams]

I was saying that you were exaggerating.

Just a simple, "you don't see it, but I do."

Followed by an equally simple, "I used to think I saw it, but I think I was mistaken."

[Benjamin McGuire]

John W writes:

As you say, text is nothing until it is read, and reading is a creative act that brings all of our personal experience, biases, and expectations to the text. The great thing about applying a postmodern approach to the Book of Mormon is that the book need not meet any expectations at all and is free to be rewritten at will (even Joseph Smith seems to have recognized that). Thus, in the absence of meaning, reading is a solitary act, and it stands to reason that a testimony that the text is "true" in some sense would also be solitary and subjective.

But this is the case whether or not you are a postmodernist (or even merely a post structuralist). Whether or not you want to assert that texts have determinate meanings is rather aside from the fact that we still have to read them - and that our language doesn't generally give us determinate meanings as we read.

At this point though, I still think this is a dodge. Why don't we have some of you provide us with your expectations with which you approach the text so that they can be discussed openly. What is it that a divinely translated text should look like? Who would its audience be? Would it have a determinate meaning dictated by its author's intent? Is God more of a literal word-for-word kind of translator or an idea-for-idea kind of translator ...

Not talking about these things, but then using some hypothetical divinely translated text to compare with the Book of Mormon as a means of criticizing it, is, if you don't mind the expression, putting the chariot before the horse ...

Ben