Horses In The Book Of Mormon

[Bender]

maklelan Posted Today, 10:41 AM

1) I never said that science needs to conclude that horses existed during this time period. I only said there's enough evidence to leave the issue unresolved. Your objections still don't solve the problem.

There really isn't enough evidence to leave it unresolved, but if sufficient comes forward then it would be prudent to change ones view on whether horses did exist during this time period.

2) You didn't respond to everything I posted. There's still the issue of pre-Columbian depictions of horses and riders, and the testimony of Native Americans.

Where are these depictions. The website you referenced has some on it which have already been shown not true. Are there other sources?

[John Larsen]

Gloria Farley's book In Plain Sight (Columbus, GA: ISAC Press, 1994) lists numerous such depictions. This website also reproduces (very poorly) a small handful of others.

Gloria Farley of Heavener Runestone fame? Good Grief.

No, the testimony of 17th and 18th century Native Americans who never had contact with the Spaniards encountered by other European explorers. They claimed that they had had horses for generations up generations, and the stories of those European explorers were largely discounted for years because others argued that horse populations couldn't have developed so quickly so far from the Spanish introduction.

You expect a preliterate society to preserve viable archeological evidence in their oral mythology?

Now, to be clear on what you are arguing, you are saying that the horse populations (where?) couldn't have developed from (what?) numbers to (what?) numbers in (what?) time span?

[ERayR]

You see, the best way to go is to start by assuming that you know absolutely nothing. When you realize this, you won't get as angry as you seem to get. The best we humans can do is approximation. So relax, the point here is to exchange information and ot learn. There is nothing more futile than getting angry at someone in an internet debate forum.

Does anybody else see the irony in this statement.

[maklelan]

There really isn't enough evidence to leave it unresolved, but if sufficient comes forward then it would be prudent to change ones view on whether horses did exist during this time period.

Where are these depictions. The website you referenced has some on it which have already been shown not true. Are there other sources?

Please show me where every one of those depictions was shown to be "not true."

[cksalmon]

Gloria Farley's book In Plain Sight (Columbus, GA: ISAC Press, 1994) lists numerous such depictions. This website also reproduces (very poorly) a small handful of others.

This one certainly doesn't strike me as being particularly man-riding-horsely.

Brant Gardner's comments on this particular find:

The lighting on those is pretty bad, but among all of the photographs, here is what can be said:

1) There is a figure of a person, a man based on what I see of the clothing, standing in front of an animal.

2) The animal is not taller than the man's waist.

3) Mesoamerican art is not necessarily accurately depicting scale or perspective, but relative size is usually an indication. This suggests that the animal is no more than waist high. On the average Mesoamerican native, less that three feet to the waist (assuming a 5 foot average).

4) The legs are drawn in a fashion that is not realistic for any animal. They curve inward with no indication of the knee. That precludes any clear use of the legs as a determination of the type of animal and certainly underscores that it is less that accurately depicted.

4) The head is nondescript. If this were a better indication of a horse we would expect a longer head. Since it isn't realistic, it isn't certain, but there is nothing in the head that suggests anything particularly horselike.

5) The tail does not appear to hair, but rather an bony tail.

It really seems like it is a dog more than a horse. If you saw it first and someone labeled it dog, I doubt we would be calling it a horse.

Having said that, as I remember, some of the horse bones found in situ came from Chichen. Still, I vote for dog on this stone.

I think this one, at least, can be crossed off the list.

cks

[Bender]

maklelan Posted Today, 04:44 PM

Please show me where every one of those depictions was shown to be "not true."

Why everyone, I said some. The one in particular cksalmon I see has just now addressed.

[maklelan]

Gloria Farley of Heavener Runestone fame? Good Grief.

Gee, who could possibly argue with that juggernaut of logic and evidentiary support?

You expect a preliterate society to preserve viable archeological evidence in their oral mythology?

Yes. The absolutely a priori assumption (from the 19th century) that such couldn't possibly be the case has been shown to be remarkably inadequate on a number of occasions, despite your personal and a priori convictions to the contrary. I suggest you browse this journal and consider that the entire Iliad and Odyssey were composed without the aid of writing and were preserved with virtually no change through Greece's Dark Ages for centuries before they were ever written down. You can also check out this book. You may be blissfully comfortable with your antiquated notions of historical methodology, but there are an awful lot of people in this profession right now who would appreciate it if you just got out of the way.

Now, to be clear on what you are arguing, you are saying that the horse populations (where?) couldn't have developed from (what?) numbers to (what?) numbers in (what?) time span?

Well, one example are French fur trappers who reached the Western Plains around the 1660's and found the Plains tribes with well-developed horse technology and riding breeds of horses then unknown to Europeans, like the Appaloosa. The Indian horses were smaller and multicolored, which is hard to explain by just ejaculating that the Spaniards dropped off cartloads of their much larger monochrome horses in Mexico and they wandered up to the middle of the US, evolving dramatically over the next 100 years. Frank Gilbert Roe, in his book The Indian and the Horse (University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1955), explains that the Shoshone horses had to have been introduced well before 1700. Spanish horses couldn't have gotten up there that quickly, and no such horses were known to the Spanish.

[John Larsen]

Gee, who could possibly argue with that juggernaut of logic and evidentiary support?

It can't be an worse than a Kindergarten teacher taking on mainstream archeology.

Yes. The absolutely a priori assumption (from the 19th century) that such couldn't possibly be the case has been shown to be remarkably inadequate on a number of occasions, despite your personal and a priori convictions to the contrary. I suggest you browse this journal and consider that the entire Iliad and Odyssey were composed without the aid of writing and were preserved with virtually no change through Greece's Dark Ages for centuries before they were ever written down. You can also check out this book. You may be blissfully comfortable with your antiquated notions of historical methodology, but there are an awful lot of people in this profession right now who would appreciate it if you just got out of the way.

It is true that oral histories can be relatively stable. However, mythology has been shown to adapt rather quickly when cutures impact or other significant shift happens, for example the Ghost Dance. The introduction of horses could be such a shift so that fact that the mythology 200-300 years after the introduction is not surpising. But you are making two assertions, the oral history remained unchanged and the oral history can be an accurate description of historical data. Your example would be more apropos if you could argue that the Iliad preserved zoological evidence long preserved in the myth but lost to science. That is unlikely.

Well, one example are French fur trappers who reached the Western Plains around the 1660's and found the Plains tribes with well-developed horse technology and riding breeds of horses then unknown to Europeans, like the Appaloosa. The Indian horses were smaller and multicolored, which is hard to explain by just ejaculating that the Spaniards dropped off cartloads of their much larger monochrome horses in Mexico and they wandered up to the middle of the US, evolving dramatically over the next 100 years. Frank Gilbert Roe, in his book The Indian and the Horse (University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1955), explains that the Shoshone horses had to have been introduced well before 1700. Spanish horses couldn't have gotten up there that quickly, and no such horses were known to the Spanish.

It seems to me that it would not take more than a single generation to adopt a horse culture, just like it only took a few short years for plains Indians to adapt to rifle hunting and warfare. As to the smaller size, I don't know if that still holds today, but that might be a function of diet.

How do you know that Spanish horses were monochrome? CFR. In fact, one of Cortez's 16 horses was said to be dappled as are other European breeds (specifically Spanish) which also display the spotted LP gene marker and a particular gait known as the "Indian Shuffle" which resembles the gait of the Spanish Paso Fino . Appaloosas appear to be related to European breeds and not to Asiatic breeds as you would expect if they had a Middle Eastern origin. I also know that the wild horses in the west are know to breed very quickly, and population control is regularly executed.

I am not going out on a limb here, this is pretty standard stuff.

[Mudcat]

This one certainly doesn't strike me as being particularly man-riding-horsely.

Looks more like big DOG to me.

See the straight tail.

Can a horse straighten its tail. A dog can.

[cksalmon]

Why everyone, I said some. The one in particular cksalmon I see has just now addressed.

As I see it, the problem is not that the critics, in general, are unwilling even to countenance the evidence for pre-Columbian horses in Mesoamerica. (At least I'm not. Heck, I'm not even particularly interested in BoM's historical claims. I'm much more interested in LDS theology.) The problem is that the evidence is weak and seems mainly to stem from sources that have been later questioned or exhuberant LDS whose claims lack any sort of rigorous oversight.

Consider Mak's linked reference. At least one of the featured stones, when examined closely, is revealed to be pretty much not-a-horse. Brant Gardner agrees. And yet the website Mak offers boldly claims: "The Above picture of a bearded man and a horse is carved on the Temple of Palques, Chichen Itza, Yucatan Mexico . It was photographed by Otto Done and appeared in The Improvement Era December 1955."

Well, not really.

I think it unfortunate that Dr. Peterson's comments on the FAIR horses video seem almost to ghettoize Mormon claims for the pre-Columbian horse: [speaking of horse remains] "They've almost always been discarded because the archaeologists assumed on the basis of ideology or preconceived opinion that that must be site contamination."

So, the message seems to be that, if a find is questioned by professional archaeologists (without any particular bone to pick with BoM claims), the negative appraisal re: horse remains is a product of ideology or preconceived opinion. Might not the reverse be at least equally (or perhaps even more) true?

So, the question is whether or not we have good reason to believe in the existence of the pre-Columbian horse in a BoM timeframe.

It's not my thang, really. Either way (but I can't see that we have good, solid evidence to believe), I'm convinced that Mormonism is false on other grounds, so it's really just a side issue with little relevance to me personally.

Best.

cks

[maklelan]

It can't be an worse than a Kindergarten teacher taking on mainstream archeology.

Zing! Still, I prefer to judge the argument and not the person making argument. Kindergarten teachers can still be right.

It is true that oral histories can be relatively stable. However, mythology has been shown to adapt rather quickly when cutures impact or other significant shift happens, for example the Ghost Dance. The introduction of horses could be such a shift so that fact that the mythology 200-300 years after the introduction is not surpising. But you are making two assertions, the oral history remained unchanged and the oral history can be an accurate description of historical data. Your example would be more apropos if you could argue that the Iliad preserved zoological evidence long preserved in the myth but lost to science. That is unlikely.

And why do you conclude that oral traditions about horses among a society are not tradition, but "mythology"?

It seems to me that it would not take more than a single generation to adopt a horse culture, just like it only took a few short years for plains Indians to adapt to rifle hunting and warfare. As to the smaller size, I don't know if that still holds today, but that might be a function of diet.

Is that just a guess, or do you actually have evidence that diet can so quickly shrink and discolor a breed of horse?

How do you know that Spanish horses were monochrome? CFR.

The horses imported by the Spanish were Hispano-Arabian horses, which are very, very rarely multicolored, especially among careful breeders. The Spanish thought the painted horses were good only as pack horses. The American pintos and creams also aren't descendant from the Arabians. The book I cited by Roe explains all this.

In fact, one of Cortez's 16 horses was said to be dappled as are other European breeds (specifically Spanish) which also display the spotted LP gene marker and a particular gait known as the "Indian Shuffle" which resembles the gait of the Spanish Paso Fino. Appaloosas appear to be related to European breeds and not to Asiatic breeds as you would expect if they had a Middle Eastern origin. I also know that the wild horses in the west are know to breed very quickly, and population control is regularly executed.

While he did bring two painted horses with him in 1519, those two were the only ones, and there's no indication they were left there or used for breeding.

I am not going out on a limb here, this is pretty standard stuff.

I know, but it's not a slam dunk case. I believe there's enough reason to continue looking. An argument from silence isn't really strong enough to automatically invalidate all evidence to the contrary or override an objective interpretation of it.

[John Larsen]

I know, but it's not a slam dunk case. I believe there's enough reason to continue looking. An argument from silence isn't really strong enough to automatically invalidate all evidence to the contrary or override an objective interpretation of it.

I can't find a reputable zoologist, horse breeder, archeologist, paleontologist or historian outside of the Church that agrees with your position. There's strong evidence for Bigfoot than for pre-Columbian horses.

[Bernard Gui]

I can't find a reputable zoologist, horse breeder, archeologist, paleontologist or historian outside of the Church that agrees with your position. There's strong evidence for Bigfoot than for pre-Columbian horses.

Asked any Native Americans?

Bernard

[maklelan]

Asked any Native Americans?

Bernard

Evidently their heritage has long been mere mythology. The only oral traditions that can be trusted are those that are non-zoological.

[Bender]

cksalmon Posted Today, 06:14 PM

So, the message seems to be that, if a find is questioned by professional archaeologists (without any particular bone to pick with BoM claims), the negative appraisal re: horse remains is a product of ideology or preconceived opinion. Might not the reverse be at least equally (or perhaps even more) true?

So, the question is whether or not we have good reason to believe in the existence of the pre-Columbian horse in a BoM timeframe.

Something I seem to much of. When one doesn't like what the experts think on some issue to many like to accuse them of some kind of motivation or bias on the subject. This might be possible but most often not likely. In this case I have never seen any reasonable reason given to distrust them.

It's not my thang, really. Either way (but I can't see that we have good, solid evidence to believe), I'm convinced that Mormonism is false on other grounds, so it's really just a side issue with little relevance to me personally.

Agreed. Fun to watch sometimes though. I don't know why some get so hung up on the horse issue.

[skenderbeg]

There's strong evidence for Bigfoot than for pre-Columbian horses.

Really? CFR on that one.

Then again... I think I actually dated Big Foot in college (shudder, shudder)... let me see if I can find any pictures...

[SolarPowered]

It seems that Mak or somebody has derailed this thread by boldly declaring that there is substantial evidence of precolumbian horses in the Americas. The detractors of the Book of Mormon have seized on that overreaching statement to the exclusion of all else. While the declarer is certainly welcome to his opinion on that subject, that is not the sum and substance of the apologetic argument about the mention of "horses" in the Book of Mormon.

As I posted previously:

The Church has not to my knowledge made any statements regarding horses in the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, a number of critics have made the assertion that, because they don't know about any horses (Equus caballus) in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus, that the Book of Mormon must therefore be a fraud.

A number of members of the Church have answered those charges by pointing out that there a several ways that the term "horse" might appear in an authentic text of this sort. Any of these mechanisms is sufficient to debunk the critic's arguments. These mechanisms include:

It is common for people who encounter an unknown species of animal to name it after an animal that they are familiar with. Of particular probative value are the following examples: The Greeks, upon encountering an animal that distantly resembles a horse and lives in the water, called it a "horse"; to wit, the "hippopotamus." Various native American races have called the European horse "deer", others call it "tapir." It is entirely plausible that Lehi's party applied the name "horse" to the deer, tapir, llama, or some other animal.

It is also common in translation that when a translator encounters a name for an animal for which he has no word to translate it to, he will translate it to some name of a similar animal that his reader will be familiar with. There are a number of examples of this in the King James Bible. It is quite plausible that the translator of the Book of Mormon chose the word "horse" to represent some large critter that had no name in the subset of the English language that he was familiar with.

Also, it is unproven that there were neither Equus caballus nor Equus equus in Nephite lands during the time that the Nephites were there. And indeed, there are a number of tantalizing indicators that suggest that there may have been such. These include old linguistic traces of a word for "horse", Indian traditions of having horses before the arrival of the White Man, and numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination."

Obviously, the presence of actual precolumbian Equus remains would satisfy even the most skeptical critic.

RCM, do you find fault with any of these lines of argument?

Again, do you, RCM, do you find fault with these lines are argument? How about the other detractors?

[maklelan]

It seems that Mak or somebody has derailed this thread by boldly declaring that there is substantial evidence of precolumbian horses in the Americas.

Excuse me? I don't recall making this bold statement. I do recall explaining that I think there is enough evidence to consider it plausible, but I hardly consider my response to the arguments thrown at me "derailing" this thread.

[SolarPowered]

Excuse me? I don't recall making this bold statement. I do recall explaining that I think there is enough evidence to consider it plausible, but I hardly consider my response to the arguments thrown at me "derailing" this thread.

OK, it must have been somebody else. No insult was intended, I just wanted to get back to the broader argument about "horses."

[maklelan]

OK, it must have been somebody else. No insult was intended, I just wanted to get back to the broader argument about "horses."

Ah, fair enough. It's actually about time for me to bow out. I have enough to do with our symposium coming up on Friday.

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Yesterday, 10:21 PM

numerous cases where archaeologists have thrown away horse remains in precolumbian strata because "everyone knows that there weren't any horses here then, therefore these are modern contamination.

Do you have any sources that show that archaeologists have actually been throwing away horse remains in pre-columbian strata?

[SolarPowered]

Do you have any sources that show that archaeologists have actually been throwing away horse remains in pre-columbian strata?

At this point, my source is hearsay. I have a friend who is also a friend of John Clark, and he told her that.

I have a vague recollection of seeing that statement from him in print, but I doubt that I could find it. At this point, one is certainly entitled to take my statement with a huge grain of salt.

On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated. Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Today, 12:24 AM

On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated. Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

I heard they were working on something like that. Hopefully soon we will see what they find.

[thesometimesaint]

Bender:

[cdowis]

On the other hand, I believe that Dr. Clark, in conjunction with FARMS, has a current project to seek out some of these bones and have them dated. Given the glacial pace of academic work, it will probably be a while before we see results in print, but I do expect that we will eventually get to see what they find out.

This has been going around for years. I asked Dan about it last year, and he had no update, so I would not hold my breath. Sounds like it got shelved, or the preliminary results were not promising.