Ancient Nephite Textiles

[Uncle Dale]

Which American Indian spinning and weaving methods most resemble

Israelite technology?

Did American Indians learn anything about thread, cloth, dying, sewing,

etc. from transplanted Israelite culture in the Americas?

Which American Indian woven thread patterns most resemble the

loom-work of Israelite and/or Jewish culture from 2800 years ago?

Ancient Israelite Loom

If we were to go looking today for examples of American Indian fabrics that

were influenced by Nephite techniques/materials, where should we dig?

UD

[Marmonboy]

That loom in the photo looks rather like the ones Navajo women use to make rugs, but there are probably only so many ways to build a loom.

[Uncle Dale]

That loom in the photo looks rather like the ones Navajo women use to make rugs,

but there are probably only so many ways to build a loom.

There are also several ways to make cloth -- some of which do not involve weaving.

But I am particularly interested in woven fabrics in preColumbian America. The

Navajo are an Athabaskan people -- relative newcomers from Asia, who brought

with them the technology of loom-making that also evolved into Tibetan and

Mongolian looms.

So THAT would be one stream of weaving that entered the Americas, rather late,

through what is now Alaska and the western USA.

But what about Peruvian cloth? That set of textiles appears to have evolved in place,

along the west coast of the Andes, apart from loom-weaving brought down through

Alaska. We can compare the patterns of interwoven threads, from archaeological digs,

to differentiate one culture's weaving techniques from that of other cultures.

If Mormons were truly serious about accepting the antiquity of the Book of Mormon,

and the reality of an ancient Israelite culture in the preColumbian Americas, we might

at least expect them to tell us what ancient American Indian fabrics and clothing

construction techniques MOST RESEMBLE those of the purported Nephites.

Or -- is there a prohibition voiced in the Book of Mormon, whereby Nephite technology

is forbidden any transfer to Native American peoples?

???

UD

.

[Senator]

Perhaps Nephite technology was inferior to the indigenous, therefore not adapted.

[Uncle Dale]

Perhaps Nephite technology was inferior to the indigenous, therefore not adapted.

I live in Hawaii -- where the story of the appearance of Captain Cook and

his ships is still told. So far as I can tell, the Hawaiians appropriated 99%

of intrusive European technology, and the intruding haoles only

copied about 1% of native Hawaiian culture/technology.

But, perhaps you are correct -- we can look to archaeological evidence of

the Philistine intrusion into Palestinian/Canaanite culture, to see how long

it took for Philistine ceramics, textiles, etc. to influence the Israelites, etc.

To assume that American Indian culture overwhelmed the Nephites' own

culture/technology, so as to quickly obliterate any traces of "Israelites,"

is a little too implausible for me to accept.

If that happened, we might expect to see the Nephites abandoning Hebrew

as their language, and Reformed Egyptian as their writing method.

I'm curious ---- how many readers at this Message Board believe that

American Indian technology almost totally replaced Nephite technology,

before the extinction of the Nephite nation?

UD

[Anyon]

There are no Nephites, never have been any Nephites, hence no Nephite textiles. Marrying indengious cultures into Smith's fictions is nothing more then cultrial thievery.....

I suggest the better comparison of Nephite textiles would be with the textiles of Hobbits.....

[Brant Gardner]

Or -- is there a prohibition voiced in the Book of Mormon, whereby Nephite technology

is forbidden any transfer to Native American peoples?

Not forbidden, but neither is it declared. It is a moot question from the text's standpoint. The question then becomes whether or not there is a likely importation. In the case of backstrap looms and weaving patterns, I doubt that any could be determined. Finding a swastika in native american art certainly doesn't link that icon to Old World designs, even though it is somewhat distinctive.

[cinepro]

I'm curious ---- how many readers at this Message Board believe that

American Indian technology almost totally replaced Nephite technology,

before the extinction of the Nephite nation?

UD

If you read my thread here, the answer would be "all of them".

The BoM peoples didn't introduce a single lasting effect to the New World. If they hadn't shown up, nothing would have been different.

[Jeff K.]

We know too little of Nephite "technology" and we are still attempting to figure out the Pre Columbian groups and their influence. For all we know Mali might have had an influence upon the Americas, especially given that some groups had no writing technology upon which to record information.

For all we know Mali may have had an influence when they sent out explorers. Please note the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan monument.

[Uncle Dale]

Not forbidden, but neither is it declared. It is a moot question from the text's standpoint. The question then becomes whether or not there is a likely importation. In the case of backstrap looms and weaving patterns, I doubt that any could be determined. Finding a swastika in native american art certainly doesn't link that icon to Old World designs, even though it is somewhat distinctive.

I can go out in my backyard and there discover one small spot where flowers will not grow.

Digging under the dirt, less than an inch, I see why -- there's a flat stone buried there.

I would expect -- in much the same way -- we might detect the geographical location of

the Nephites, by looking for a place, spatially and chronologically, in the archaeological

record, where habitation prospects are very high, but ancient Amerind cultural evidences

are very low.

Even if we can never locate a single verifiable Israelite artifact from preColumbian times;

we ought to be able to discern something from the distribution patterns of Amerind ceramics,

textiles, weaponry, crop fossil pollen, etc.

Where all of that is at a minimum, THERE is the spot to excavate for Zarahemla.

Unless, as previously suggested, American Indian culture so totally overwhelmed that

of the Israelite colonists, that not a single shred of Israelite textiles; nor a single fragment

of Israelite ceramics; nor any influence of the same upon native Americans is left.

None of which bodes well for the great Nephite nation; nor for the Land of Promise --

wherever we might chose to locate either of them.

UD

[Jeff K.]

Amazing how the Book of Mormon shows Nahor and the relatively unknown tip of Saudi Arabia though..

I can go out in my backyard and there discover one small spot where flowers will not grow. Digging under the dirt, less than an inch, I see why -- there's a flat stone buried there.I would expect -- in much the same way -- we might detect the geographical location of the Nephites, by looking for a place, spatially and chronologically, in the archaeological record, where habitation prospects are very high, but ancient Amerind cultural evidences are very low.Even if we can never locate a single verifiable Israelite artifact from preColumbian times; we ought to be able to discern something from the distribution patterns of Amerind ceramics, textiles, weaponry, crop fossil pollen, etc.Where all of that is at a minimum, THERE is the spot to excavate for Zarahemla.Unless, as previously suggested, American Indian culture so totally overwhelmed that of the Israelite colonists, that not a single shred of Israelite textiles; nor a single fragment of Israelite ceramics; nor any influence of the same upon native Americans is left.None of which bodes well for the great Nephite nation; nor for the Land of Promise -- wherever we might chose to locate either of them.UD

The dearth of your knowledge regarding archeology and discoveries amazes even me.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I suggest the better comparison of Nephite textiles would be with the textiles of Hobbits.....

At least we know what Hobbit clothing looks like...

UD

[Jeff K.]

Do you believe that "all" civilizations that have existed in the Americas have been catalogued and discovered?

[Uncle Dale]

Amazing how the Book of Mormon shows Nahor and the relatively unknown tip of Saudi Arabia though.. :PThe dearth of your knowledge regarding archeology and discoveries amazes even me.

I confess a great ignorance of Nephite archaeology.But, perhaps you can point out to me the Land of Promise, wherein Jesus Christ will reign over the coming Millennium????UD

Do you believe that "all" civilizations that have existed in the Americas have been catalogued and discovered?

Nope -- just the major ones.Hence, my analogy of the barren spot in my backyard.Look for that "undiscovered country" on the map -- wherein American Indians did not dwell in Nephite times, and THERE is the place that the BYU Scientists can begin their digging.UD

[Jeff K.]

You do not know of a civilization is major until its found and its influence is guaged. The Minoans were thought to be "Cretans" and it wasn't until fairly recently that they were counted as a "major" civilization pre Greek dark ages. I point out to you that you make assumptions that no true scholar would make in regard to finds and archeological digs.

The fact that you believe all "major" finds have been made flies into the face of archeological scholarship. It is the equivalent of stating that all great inventions have now been made.

[Uncle Dale]

You do not know of a civilization is major until its found and its influence is guaged. The Minoans were thought to be "Cretans" and it wasn't until fairly recently that they were counted as a "major" civilization pre Greek dark ages. I point out to you that you make assumptions that no true scholar would make in regard to finds and archeological digs.

The fact that you believe all "major" finds have been made flies into the face of archeological scholarship. It is the equivalent of stating that all great inventions have now been made.

Do you not suppose, that if the dominant civilization in the 21st century Americas were

destroyed (perhaps by disease or catastrophic weather), it could not be discerned by

future investigators, through archaeological inspections/excavations?

Were the Nephites EVER the dominant civilization in the Americas?

Were they ever even among the 10 major preColumbian societies?

Or among the 100 major preColumbian societies?

In my estimation we have already uncovered and documented the 10 major cultures

in the preColumbian Americas, and have good evidence of the distributions of their

technological tool-kits, their domesticated crops, their ceramics and textiles, etc.

And, we have made a good start on doing the same for the 100 major preColumbian

societies -- none of which show indications of being exotic intrusions from Palestine.

If I am wrong -- probably you can show us a better deduction from the available evidence.

???

UD

[Jeff K.]

Do you not suppose, that if the dominant civilization in the 21st century Americas were

destroyed (perhaps by disease or catastrophic weather), it could not be discerned by

future investigators, through archaeological inspections/excavations?

Or among the 100 major preColumbian societies?

In my estimation we have already uncovered and documented the 10 major cultures

in the preColumbian Americas, and have good evidence of the distributions of their

technological tool-kits, their domesticated crops, their ceramics and textiles, etc.

Minoans were a dominant civilization in the Mediterranean in which we have a historical contintuity (at least the best that western knowledge has). And yet we knew next to nothing about them assuming the culture of the Greeks to give birth to much of our culture (rather than the matriarchial Minoans). I would also point out that in the 20th century technology, interaction, extensive use of massive earth moving over large areas with populations significantly larger than ever before imagined. Yes, archeology would more likely find much more evidence than for any other civilization that has ever existed before in the history and pre history of man. But for that reason your first point is irrelevant and moot to the discussion.

And, we have made a good start on doing the same for the 100 major preColumbian

societies -- none of which show indications of being exotic intrusions from Palestine.

A good start? I have spoke to archeologists (very secular archeologists I might add) who have told me they haven't even scratched the surface.

Were the Nephites EVER the dominant civilization in the Americas?

Were they ever even among the 10 major preColumbian societies?

I don't know if they were ever the dominant civilization. Anymore than Israel was ever a dominant civilization. Possibly the greatest impact on the Mediterranean pre Roman and post Minoan were the mysterious "sea peoples" and no one is sure who they were and what their origins were. And yet they were "dominant" in the Mediterranean.

I don't know if the Nephites were ever dominant or among the 10 major Pre-Columbian societies. Israel was never among the major Mediterranean societies. So the point is not necessarily relevant to the discussion.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I don't know if the Nephites were ever dominant or among the 10 major Pre-Columbian societies.

...

Then, since an inferior society rarely passes along any technological advances

to a superior society, we cannot expect Israelite textiles, or Israelite ceramics,

or Israelite astronomy, or Israelite animal domestication, or Israelite weaponry,

or Israelite architecture, or Israelite calendars, or Israelite Hebrew, or Israelite

knowledge of Egyptian writing --- or anything else --- to have been passed on

to the "superior" societies, such as the Iroquois Confederation, or the Andean

civilizations, or the Mexicans.

Then, if an inferior society adopts the technology of an advanced society, we

can only expect the Nephites to have adopted the simplest, most common

elements of superior American Indian cultures ---- maize agriculture, for example.

Thus, there is no need to look for any answer to my question, of how Nephite

textile methods might have been preserved in neighboring American Indian tribes.

Time to close this thread?

UD

[Brant Gardner]

I would expect -- in much the same way -- we might detect the geographical location of

the Nephites, by looking for a place, spatially and chronologically, in the archaeological

record, where habitation prospects are very high, but ancient Amerind cultural evidences

are very low.

The major problem with this is the expectation of what the evidence should tell you. Once you have pre-decided what you are looking for, not finding becomes evidence instead of what it really is, which is evidence for what happened regardless of the preconditions set for the search.

What technologies could the Lehites bring? Which ones were not already in place? Why would an Old World style persist when there were significant other models of a different style? (the history of clothing styles should be a hint here)

Until an argument can be made that the Lehites possessed the ability to create a technology and that there was no similar technology in the New World, searching for the presence of a technology you can't even define becomes pointless.

Even if we can never locate a single verifiable Israelite artifact from preColumbian times;

we ought to be able to discern something from the distribution patterns of Amerind ceramics,

textiles, weaponry, crop fossil pollen, etc.

And this is quite true and is the standard stuff of archaeology and tracing trade and migration patterns. For example, pottery assemblages indicate that there was some contact between the Zoquean Grijalva river valley and the Maya around 200 B.C. It indicates that there was an incursion of the Zoquean speakers a bit before that time into the area. Both of those conditions match descriptions from the Book of Mormon in overall meaning and in both time and space.

Where all of that is at a minimum, THERE is the spot to excavate for Zarahemla.

The current best guess is Santa Rosa, which is now under water (as would be most of Nephite remains, since they were along the Grijalva, in this theory). However, excavations were understaken and there were at least two reports written. They are available from NWAF (I believe the are both online).

Unless, as previously suggested, American Indian culture so totally overwhelmed that

of the Israelite colonists, that not a single shred of Israelite textiles; nor a single fragment

of Israelite ceramics; nor any influence of the same upon native Americans is left.

Since this is the most likely scenario, it is incumbent upon anyone suggesting differently to create an argument that might lead to influence from the Lehites into the New World.

[Brant Gardner]

Do you not suppose, that if the dominant civilization in the 21st century Americas were

destroyed (perhaps by disease or catastrophic weather), it could not be discerned by

future investigators, through archaeological inspections/excavations?

A rather obviously incorrect examination. A better one might be when I moved from New York to New Mexico. We changed from a particular cultural area to another. Nevertheless, my taste for apple cider donuts did not alter the New Mexico cuisine. I live in a house that looks much more southwestern than northeastern.

If archaeologists were to excavate my descendants' homes, do you believe they could prove I came from New York?

Were the Nephites EVER the dominant civilization in the Americas?

I do not believe so. I also do not believe that the Israelites were ever the dominant civilization in the Near East.

Were they ever even among the 10 major preColumbian societies?

I do not believe so. I also do not believe that Israel ever really made into any top 10 (Solomon's reign might be argued, but I really don't think it would measure up).

If I am wrong -- probably you can show us a better deduction from the available evidence.

Sure. Of course it requires casting off preconceptions and assuming that if you are looking for history and archaeological evidence then you have to use those disciplines correctly. That means that we can't be unhappy with the Book of Mormon for not being the book we thought it was and allow it to be the book it says it is.

[Brant Gardner]

Then, since an inferior society rarely passes along any technological advances

to a superior society, we cannot expect Israelite textiles, or Israelite ceramics,

or Israelite astronomy, or Israelite animal domestication, or Israelite weaponry,

or Israelite architecture, or Israelite calendars, or Israelite Hebrew, or Israelite

knowledge of Egyptian writing --- or anything else --- to have been passed on

to the "superior" societies, such as the Iroquois Confederation, or the Andean

civilizations, or the Mexicans.

Right. You have read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? He lists several occasions where there was an important technology in place that was not passed on and lost. Even the presence of a technology (without suggesting that the Lehites even had such technology) does not guarantee its survival.

For example, even with horses, it took a long time for the wheel to become important in Mesoamerica. The reason was the state of the roads. They didn't lend themselves to wheeled vehicles. The natives weren't sufficiently interested in wheeled carts to alter their pathways.

[Uncle Dale]

Right. You have read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? He lists several occasions where there was an important technology in place that was not passed on and lost. Even the presence of a technology (without suggesting that the Lehites even had such technology) does not guarantee its survival.

For example, even with horses, it took a long time for the wheel to become important in Mesoamerica. The reason was the state of the roads. They didn't lend themselves to wheeled vehicles. The natives weren't sufficiently interested in wheeled carts to alter their pathways.

I'll grant you this much --

If the Nephites and Mulekites were essentially pacifists, who were uninterested

in subduing neighboring Amerind tribes, they may have had so little interaction

with them, as to leave no trace of cultural borrowing, either way.

But, so far as I can tell from re-constructions of preColumbian history, the Nephites

would have had to live in some very remote corner of the Americas, out of the

path of migrations and conquests, not to have significantly encountered the Indians.

The BoM says that in addition to foodstuffs made of wheat flour, the Nephites

and Lamanites also ate maize. So, at least that much cultural borrowing went on.

Again -- if what you propose was really the case, I would expect to find a

"blank spot" in the geographic distribution of artifacts attributable to Indians,

in which the Nephites/Lamanites existed for centuries, without interactions

with their neighbors. Can you locate such a place on the archaeological map?

UD

[Jeff K.]

I'll grant you this much -- If the Nephites and Mulekites were essentially pacifists, who were uninterested in subduing neighboring Amerind tribes, they may have had so little interaction with them, as to leave no trace of cultural borrowing, either way.But, so far as I can tell from re-constructions of preColumbian history, the Nephites would have had to live in some very remote corner of the Americas, out of the path of migrations and conquests, not to have significantly encountered the Indians.The BoM says that in addition to foodstuffs made of wheat flour, the Nephites and Lamanites also ate maize. So, at least that much cultural borrowing went on.Again -- if what you propose was really the case, I would expect to find a "blank spot" in the geographic distribution of artifacts attributable to Indians, in which the Nephites/Lamanites existed for centuries, without interactions with their neighbors. Can you locate such a place on the archaeological map?UD

Bit of a straw man isn't it? You make more assumptions in hopes of making it impossible to believe. I bring you back to the "sea peoples" of the Mediterranean. They were certainly not pacificsts and are considered by some to have been a key reason for the onset of the Greek dark ages. They ranged all over the Mediterranean and yet we know next to nothing about them. They weren't pacifists, they weren't in a remote area, and they were aggressive in their interaction with other cultures. And yet, we know next to nothing and would never have known of their existence were it not for extensive archeological research. And even then, nothing more than a mention or two.Yet I would challenge you to find their cultural reference, their impact on society via pottery shards, cultural mores, or anything that reflects who they were. And yet they were a problem for centuries....The little information we have comes from heavily studied sites that would still remain a mystery today had it not been for the Rosetta stone. One wonders what might have been in all of the hundreds of Mayan Codices destroyed by priests.So we have some of the most heavily well studied sites in the world and yet barely a sliver of mention here and there of these "sea peoples".In the Americas we have barely touched the surface of the cultures and development and yet you make the assumption that some equivalency should be had in regard to the Americas and Middle East in terms knowledge depth. It is the equivalent of comparing a drop of water to a five gallon tub. The Americas are still very much shrouded in pre-Columbian mystery.Without a doubt there might have been a great deal of cultural borrowing. But the original Nephites being from a somewhat arid land (to say the least) may have borrowed much more from the environment they moved to and impacted the aboriginal peoples significantly less. I don't see a great deal of cultural borrowing from the Vikings by the Innuit, do you?

Again -- if what you propose was really the case, I would expect to find a "blank spot" in the geographic distribution of artifacts attributable to Indians, in which the Nephites/Lamanites existed for centuries, without interactions with their neighbors. Can you locate such a place on the archaeological map?

I believe that expectation is erroneous and without any logical sense. Care to show me the "blank spot" in the geographical distribution of artifacts attributable to the "sea peoples"?

[Uncle Dale]

Bit of a straw man isn't it?

...

Not really -- conquest by warfare is one of the quickest and most effective

ways to spread a new technology. Witness the results of a-bombs dropped on Japan.

But, if the Nephites did not inflict their iron (or even steel) weaponry upon the

stone-age Amerinds, then technology spread by warfare might be ruled out.

What does the Book of Mormon say regarding the superiority of Nephite military

technology? Evidently it was not applied in such a way as to prevent their extinction.

However, if Mormon scientists stand ready to explain to me the nature of Nephite

society in ancient America, I'm ready to listen.

May we begin with their textiles?

UD

[Jeff K.]

How many iron or metal mines are found in the central jungle?

Not many, so with limited resources the weaponry might be superior but in such limited number as to be of some short term advantage.

Evidently it was not applied in such a way as to prevent their extinction.

The Chinese had gunpowder, which of course gave them world domination over the Mongols and other nations.....