Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[SolarPowered]

What is the alternative, Brant? He prepares chariots and horses for what purpose? Both here and in Alma 20, the preparation of the chariots and horses is done in context of going somewhere. If they are merely unrelated, like kittens and mittens, what is the alternative explanation? Why mention horses and chariots in the context of travel if they weren't used for travel at all?

Perhaps they are gifts. Or perhaps they are food. They could even be pets.

The point is that while they might be ridden, or they might be pulling wheeled chariots, or they might be carrying provisions in packs, the text doesn't actually say any of those things. Which is a critical point relative to Bender's assertion that it's a "big assumption" to say that the horses are never worked or ridden. It's not a big assumption at all if we are talking about the BoM text, because the text never says either of these things. If you want to assume that the text in fact describes something that in fact really existed and really happened, then you can extrapolate to what might be the case that the book doesn't explicitly state.

[MAsh]

What is the alternative, Brant? He prepares chariots and horses for what purpose? Both here and in Alma 20, the preparation of the chariots and horses is done in context of going somewhere. If they are merely unrelated, like kittens and mittens, what is the alternative explanation? Why mention horses and chariots in the context of travel if they weren't used for travel at all?

Prepare his trail mix & back pack so he can leave on his hike.

Prepare the sandwiches and picnic basket so we can go to the beach.

Prepare your makeup and grab your jacket we're going to the store.

None of these two things normally have anything to do with each other (kitten/mittens, horses/chariots) but they make sense in context.

In fact, maybe-- if horses were used as food they would need to be "prepared" as a food stuff before leaving on a trip (with a chariot) so they could have sustenance along the way.

[poulsenll]

Perhaps they are gifts. Or perhaps they are food. They could even be pets.

The point is that while they might be ridden, or they might be pulling wheeled chariots, or they might be carrying provisions in packs, the text doesn't actually say any of those things. Which is a critical point relative to Bender's assertion that it's a "big assumption" to say that the horses are never worked or ridden. It's not a big assumption at all if we are talking about the BoM text, because the text never says either of these things. If you want to assume that the text in fact describes something that in fact really existed and really happened, then you can extrapolate to what might be the case that the book doesn't explicitly state.

Speaking of assumptions. Here is an interesting one documented as such in the text.

Mosiah 21:

26 Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon.

How many more assumptions were made in the BofM by either those writing the history or by those who actually lived the events.

If the people of the BofM culture could make wrong assumptions about there own activiities, how much more likely is it for us to make assumptions when we do not really know all the ramifications of what was and was not included in Mormon's and Moroni's abridgements.

Larry P

[Hawkmoon]

It is always useful to return to the text:

From the text and text alone, we know that horses can be/should be fed. We know that along with chariots, horses are "prepared." Then he is to be conducted. While inference has both horses and chariots doing the conducting, it also has them on the trip at all. On that, the text is not explict. Substitute other words and you get "prepare his kittens and mittens, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi."

Now, I am not at all suggesting that horses or chariots have any equivalency with kittens and mittens, only that the text itself does not tell us what the relationship of the horses and chariots are to the conducting. The sentence is perfectly understandable with "kittens and mittens" but without having Lamoni sit on a mitten pulled by a kitten.

That, unfortunately, is the power of assumption. We simply assume based on the words what the rest of the context "should be," and that context is applicable if and only if our assumption of the context and connotations are correct. When working with ancient documents in translation, that is not a good assumption to make.

That was beautiful... simply beautiful. I surmise that it will fall on deaf ears as most of your textual perspective seems to. Unfortunately, it often seems to get lost in the "sound and fury", but I'm sure that more than a few of us appreciate your comments.

[Bender]

QUOTE(Brant Gardner @ Jul 22 2008, 01:08 PM) *

From the text and text alone, we know that horses can be/should be fed. We know that along with chariots, horses are "prepared." Then he is to be conducted. While inference has both horses and chariots doing the conducting, it also has them on the trip at all. On that, the text is not explict. Substitute other words and you get "prepare his kittens and mittens, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi."

Now, I am not at all suggesting that horses or chariots have any equivalency with kittens and mittens, only that the text itself does not tell us what the relationship of the horses and chariots are to the conducting. The sentence is perfectly understandable with "kittens and mittens" but without having Lamoni sit on a mitten pulled by a kitten.

That, unfortunately, is the power of assumption. We simply assume based on the words what the rest of the context "should be," and that context is applicable if and only if our assumption of the context and connotations are correct. When working with ancient documents in translation, that is not a good assumption to make.

Horses and Chariots are very much related to transportation or conducting forth. It is very logical from the passage quoted that they were used as such. I'm sorry but I think trying to separate horses and chariots from the conducting forth part IMO amounts to trying to play games with the text. The BoM is not a text for explaining how they lived what they did for fun, but a religious text. Thats why a lot of detail is not generally given. The one story of horses and chariots is not because the author wanted to tells us about how they got around, but because it is important to the story of Ammon and his extraordinary faith and diligence. This is why its not a good idea to make assumptions like, they don't go saying they used horses as work animal so they must not have.

[John Williams]

So Chris,

What does Beastie have to say about this Horse carved in stone?

Google "Landscapes and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica", search for "temple of the wall", turn to page 260, and look at the drawing to see what this is really a carving of.

[Hawkmoon]

Horses and Chariots are very much related to transportation or conducting forth. It is very logical from the passage quoted that they were used as such. I'm sorry but I think trying to separate horses and chariots from the conducting forth part IMO amounts to trying to play games with the text. The BoM is not a text for explaining how they lived what they did for fun, but a religious text. Thats why a lot of detail is not generally given. The one story of horses and chariots is not because the author wanted to tells us about how they got around, but because it is important to the story of Ammon and his extraordinary faith and diligence. This is why its not a good idea to make assumptions like, they don't go saying they used horses as work animal so they must not have.

The only assumption I see happening is by you-- IIRC, Brant has aknowledge that they "might" have been ridden; that they "might" have pulled chariots; however, his point seems to be that the text is silent on this and any declaration otherwise is only by assuming it is so.

[SolarPowered]

This is why its not a good idea to make assumptions like, they don't go saying they used horses as work animal so they must not have.

Bender, I haven't seen anyone here make that assumption. The assertion is that the Book of Mormon doesn't state that they were used as work animals, therefore it is an assumption to insist that they were used as such. That statement does not contain the assertion that "therefore we definitively know that they were not used as work animals." It merely says that the text leaves the question unanswered, and while we can conjecture about what might have been the case, we cannot reliably state that one of the various possibilities was in fact the case, and the others were not.

[Zakuska]

Google "Landscapes and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica", search for "temple of the wall", turn to page 260, and look at the drawing to see what this is really a carving of.

It sure aint no stylized Jaguar. Since there are Jaguars, monkeys, mackaws all over the Mural. And none look like that.

[John Williams]

Bender, I haven't seen anyone make that assumption. The statement is that the Book of Mormon doesn't state that they were used as work animals, therefore it is an assumption to insist that they were used as such. That statement does not contain the assertion that "therefore we definitively know that they were not used as work animals." It merely says that the text leaves the question unanswered, and while we can conjecture about what might have been the case, and because there are several plausible possibilities, we cannot reliably state that one such possibility was the case, and the others were not.

Heh. Maybe you're an anti-Mormon now, what with the urging of caution.

I sure aint no stylized Jaguar. Since there are Jaguars, monkyes, mackaws all over the Mural.

No, you aren't a stylized Jaguar.

You asked for a certain person's response, and it was delivered.

[phaedrus ut]

I sure aint no stylized Jaguar. Since there are Jaguars, monkyes, mackaws all over the Mural.

Yes they are all over this and many other murals . . . yet conspicuously absent from the narrative text. And the fauna throughout the text, such as horses, are conspicuously missing where you'd expect to see them. It's a strange predicament.

Phaedrus

[Zakuska]

Yes they are all over this and many other murals . . . yet conspicuously absent from the narrative text. And the fauna throughout the text, such as horses, are conspicuously missing where you'd expect to see them. It's a strange predicament.

Phaedrus

Not in the least... Was the "expert" who "translated" the Mural translating with a pre-conceived bias?

[John Williams]

Not in the least... Was the "expert" who "translated" the Mural translating with a pre-conceived bias?

You mean the kind of bias that says, "That's definitely a horse"?

[Brant Gardner]

What is the alternative, Brant? He prepares chariots and horses for what purpose? Both here and in Alma 20, the preparation of the chariots and horses is done in context of going somewhere. If they are merely unrelated, like kittens and mittens, what is the alternative explanation? Why mention horses and chariots in the context of travel if they weren't used for travel at all?

What is the alternative to interpreting a text through one assumption? Altering the assumption. If I shift assumptions to Mesoamerica and try to keep some connection to animal/conveyance (and I do suspect that whatever a chariot is, it really does imply a conveyance) I can come up with alternate hypotheses.

The problem, of course, is that I can't prove the hypothesis. Of course, the point of the exercise was that from the text alone we cannot require that the text match the common assumptions we bring to it.

[Hawkmoon]

You mean the kind of bias that says, "That's definitely a horse"?

And it must be pulling a chariot for that is what horses do!!

[John Williams]

What is the alternative to interpreting a text through one assumption? Altering the assumption. If I shift assumptions to Mesoamerica and try to keep some connection to animal/conveyance (and I do suspect that whatever a chariot is, it really does imply a conveyance) I can come up with alternate hypotheses.

Then what you're doing is shifting the assumptions of the text to fit into a context (in this case Mesoamerica).

The problem, of course, is that I can't prove the hypothesis. Of course, the point of the exercise was that from the text alone we cannot require that the text match the common assumptions we bring to it.

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

[SolarPowered]

You mean the kind of bias that says, "That's definitely a horse"?

Now, now, you need to acknowledge that I qualified that (in post #7) with the caveat that "horse" meant something that "your 'reasonable Nephite' could reasonably have called a 'horse'."

Nowhere have I insisted that it's an Equus caballus.

[John Williams]

And it must be pulling a chariot for that is what horses do!!

Who said that?

Now, now, you need to acknowledge that I qualified that (in post #7) with the caveat that "horse" meant something that "your 'reasonable Nephite' could reasonably have called a 'horse'."

Yes, you did. Note the *wink*.

[Tarski]

W

Of course, the point of the exercise was that from the text alone we cannot require that the text match the common assumptions we bring to it.

Then by the same token, doesn't that threaten out ability to understand what is really meant with the spiritual stuff, and the religious practices, the meaning of "spirit" or the sense of the word "pray" or the real meaning of "atonement"?

Are we viewing it all through the lense of Mormonism?

[Brant Gardner]

Horses and Chariots are very much related to transportation or conducting forth.

Can't get away from the assumption? Assuming that the assumption is the definition rather than the beginning point only creates the kind of circular arguments we have been getting on this thread--heavy on "looks like" or "must be" and very, very short on any kind of evidence or close reading of the text.

It is very logical from the passage quoted that they were used as such.

Darn. I wish I were more logical. My logic doesn't see it that way at all.

I'm sorry but I think trying to separate horses and chariots from the conducting forth part IMO amounts to trying to play games with the text.

Hardly. My experience is in interpreting both the Nahuatl and Spanish descriptions of their culture. In both cases, we see certain descriptions that attempt to approximate something that the other culture would recognize, but which fail to capture the actual essence. The process of being very careful with the text and with descriptions is exactly the way you determine whether a Spaniard's description of any native cultural item is accurate or perhaps misleading.

The BoM is not a text for explaining how they lived what they did for fun, but a religious text. Thats why a lot of detail is not generally given.

Agreed.

The one story of horses and chariots is not because the author wanted to tells us about how they got around, but because it is important to the story of Ammon and his extraordinary faith and diligence.

Agreed.

This is why its not a good idea to make assumptions like, they don't go saying they used horses as work animal so they must not have.

You are misreading me. I am saying that the textual descriptions of actions do not provide clues to what is meant when the text says "horse" and "chariot." If the very presence of the word "chariot" required a Roman/Greek/Egyptian/Assyrian war chariot, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

The problem is that my experience with documents from Central Mexico that deal with the interface between two cultures (native and Spanish) clearly point out that assuming something based on the word selected by a translator is not the best way to understand the culture that produced the information being translated.

For example, Dibble and Anderson are much better translators of Nahuatl than I shall ever be. Nevertheless, there are times when I have found that their translation actually obscures information in the Nahuatl that could be better represented with a different word. That doesn't mean they were wrong, it means that based on their perception of the Aztec world when they selected the English term for translation didn't include the richer context that might have required a change in the selection of English words.

[Hawkmoon]

Who said that? :blink:Yes, you did. Note the *wink*.

Bender

[Zakuska]

And it must be pulling a chariot for that is what horses do!!

From the provided Rubbing it looks to me like the man has his arms over the horses back, and is facing him and packing him.

It also looks like it has a unicorns horn.

[Brant Gardner]

Then what you're doing is shifting the assumptions of the text to fit into a context (in this case Mesoamerica).

I am doing two things. The first is attempting to understand the text without assumptions. The second is that if I place the text in the cultural context of Mesoamerica, does that context provide solutions for enigmatic passages in the text.

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

That is my working hypothesis. I differ from Sorenson in how I see the translation process occurring. While it is well attested that new populations adopt old labels for new animals, I don't see that as the process. While it could have happened, the evidence for the translation method as I understand it works better when Joseph Smith's understanding and vocabulary supply the rather obvious 19th century vocabulary/syntactic layer. That puts me on the other side of Skousen's understanding as well. So far, that puts me outside of typically accepted analysis. Until I can lay out my reasons, I'll have to be satisfied with simply being on the less popular side (or worse <grin>).

[Bender]

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 01:45 PM

The only assumption I see happening is by you-- IIRC, Brant has aknowledge that they "might" have been ridden; that they "might" have pulled chariots; however, his point seems to be that the text is silent on this and any declaration otherwise is only by assuming it is so.

You may want to reread some of the earlier posts I have made to catch up. I said earlier I didn't think its a big assumption that horses and chariots were being used for conveyance. It may not be 100% that they did but it is clear from the text its the most likely interpretation.

SolarPowered Posted Today, 01:49 PM

Bender, I haven't seen anyone here make that assumption. The assertion is that the Book of Mormon doesn't state that they were used as work animals, therefore it is an assumption to insist that they were used as such. That statement does not contain the assertion that "therefore we definitively know that they were not used as work animals." It merely says that the text leaves the question unanswered, and while we can conjecture about what might have been the case, we cannot reliably state that one of the various possibilities was in fact the case, and the others were not.

You may want to as well read some of the posts over again

Bernard Gui

If one judges strictly

what the BoM says about horses, it's clear there were not many, they were

not used for the purposes other people used them for, and they were not

important in Lehite culture.

This is not the first time I have seen these types of assumptions, and yes I do find many here who are very good and reserving judgement.

The only assumption I have made is in regard with horses being used for a means of conveyance, not whether they were used any other way.

[SolarPowered]

Horses and Chariots are very much related to transportation or conducting forth. It is very logical from the passage quoted that they were used as such. I'm sorry but I think trying to separate horses and chariots from the conducting forth part IMO amounts to trying to play games with the text.

I'm not following you...

The Hebrew word for "chariot", Merkava, means one of these things:

I don't see where a "horse" has anything to do with that.

I also don't see what horses have to do with transportation. If you wanted to travel some distance over rough roads, you'd use something like this:

A horse would just get in the way.

From my experience, horses are mostly pets kept by young girls. And while, yes, they are technically "transported" by their horses, horses aren't really a practical means of actually traveling anywhere.