Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

[beastie]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the matter, but were meso-american kings legislative in nature or more purely religious as seems to be implied in the article linked to on the Holy Lord? The notion that mayan kings were the pinnacle of the pyramid of an increasingly complex social order that provided a religious as well as socially cohesive influence on the society under their rule is interesting when contrasted to the other types of kings that may be reflected in the BoM narrative. I have to admit to not being very familiar with the research and debate on the subject.

It seems that there are three models of king-ship that would be possible within the BoM - one modeled on the relationship of post-revolution America to the British crown, one modeled on the Kingdom of Israel, and one the reflects meso-american monarchy structures.

What evidence is there for any or all of these? In some ways, I could see the King Benjamin narrative being a version of the Lord King typology - without all of the blood-letting and gentile perforation. I could also see it as a form of the idealized American denouncement of an unjust monarchy - King Benjamin being the type of a king that they would have supported and being suggestive of the case that led to independence. We have democratic elections taking place in the BoM (Alma 2) associated with the proposed assent of a king, which seems to fit best with an early american model, but that may be due to my ignorance of the subject.

Anyway, given that beastie and Brant both seem to have done a lot of researching and thinking on the matter, I was curious what other sources are available that do not require buying a set of books?

The kings were legislative in nature as well as the primary religious leader. There was no differentiation between politics and religion in ancient Mesoamerica.

Unfortunately, I'm not that familiar with online information about this particular topic. In general, I like to use famsi.org, but that isn't really useful for basic information and introduction. Perhaps your local library may have Michael Coe's The Maya, or Arthur Demarest's The Ancient Maya. Those are pretty foundational books that I would expect most decent libraries to have.

[Brant Gardner]

The presence of a Judeo-Christian polity â?? that, again, would have been quite influential during the time period, even aside from whether or not they had direct political control â?? at a very early period in the evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview is even more problematic than the Nephite situation.

As with everything else in this thread, we have been over this one -- and in this thread as well. The problem is that you are positing something that I wouldn't advocate (i.e. that the presence of Judeo-Christian polity should be "obvious") and secondly that we would even know what one looked like.

You are making assumptions about the nature of iconography that simply don't hold. Based on the way iconography is borrowed and repurposed (including most of what we recognize as "Christian" today), there is no way to know whether or not the iconography would have allowed for a Nephite-Christian reappropriation. On top of that, we have the aniconic nature of the Grijalva valley. For that reason alone your argument cannot hold water.

[Brant Gardner]

Again, the problem I am describing is about the spread of ideology, not particular levels of political complexity. That is a different point, and Iâ??m trying to be very explicit in differentiating between these issues since you tend to conflate them in your replies to me.

Then I am glad that you have let that one slide. We can no move away from the problem of political organizations and deal with the issue of ideology, a point (unfortunately) where your hypothesis has even more problems.

To be clear, I am asserting that the most powerful polities were the polities that dictated the ideological course of evolution for the rest of the region.

1) I have never suggested that there were not influential cities.

2) I have never suggested that the ideology associated with Mesoamerican kingship did not arise and spread during the pre-Classic.

What I have said, is that this spread was not immediate nor universal. I have give you the example of Cerros, where the form was adopted because it was available, not because of any economic or political dominance from a separate city. I have also noted that they voluntarily abandoned the system when it turned out not to continue to work for them.

I have also indicated that the Book of Mormon shows signs that the Nephites were also affected by this shift to a Mesoamerican style of kingship. That evidence is demonstrated in the particular nature of the things that they Nephite prophets preach against. The text shows a time/place-appropriate response to a city (like Cerros) that was under pressure to "be like everyone else." Unlike Cerros, they resisted. Like Cerros eventually, they declined the form.

All of that is found precisely in the conditions of the pre-Classic.

While we disagree on whether or not Zarahemla exercised direct political control, we do agree that the Nephites were very influential in the region.

We appear to differ on what we mean by "very influential." Remember, the occasions where they exercised the greatest "influence" were times when the entire region was threatened by an outside military invasion. Those are rather exceptional times, accounting for a small fraction of the years for which we have records. As for "influence" in the other years, that is less certain and less definable. It is most clear in the ease with which that "influence" was rejected by various cities.

The region that involves the BoM story is quite significant, in terms of Mesoamerica in general, so weâ??re talking about a significant swathe of Mesoamerica that would have been influenced by the Nephites for hundreds of years, and even earlier with the Jaredites.

The Jaredites are a different issue, different time, different place--and with much less information for comparison. We haven't discussed them. Please don't assume that the issues are similar without specific analysis.

As for the "region that involves the Book of Mormon story" being "quite significant," you are correct that it covers a fair amount of land. You are not correct that it was "quite significant" compared to other regions. For example, the Grijalva basin sites are clearly not as prosperous as their Maya equivalents. They are not as large, do not have as splendid of public architecture and show far fewer signs of the kind of riches amassed in the Maya region. If you think that is "quite significant," I think I need you to define what you mean.

Yet there is zero indication of a Judeo-Christian influence in the Mesoamerican worldview.

We are back to iconography, a point you seem to like to ignore.

There are a couple of issues that you haven't addressed and which are not only pertinent, but critical to this question.

1) What would a Judeo-Christian influence look like between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400, without any direct contact with the iconography developed in the Old world for that tradition?

2) The borrowing and reappropriation of pagan symbols underlies much of current Jewish or Christian traditions. Assuming that there was no borrowing from the Old World (which the Book of Mormon cannot support for Christian periods), why would the Nephites act any differently from other Jews or Christians? That is, why wouldn't they appropriate an available iconography? (By the way, the borrowing of iconography and recontextualizing it also occurs among different Mesoamerican peoples, so we know that the concept was available during that time and place).

3) The particular region of Zarahemla is nearly aniconic. Even if you were to suggest that you might find some particular symbol, how can you find it among a people who do not create symbols for display? (the Jewish tradition was essentially aniconic as well, of course).

The Nephites were exactly the type of polity that would have been dictating the evolution of Mesoamerican worldview, and yet they had zero impact on that evolution.

Now you are using your disputed conclusion about the nature of the Nephite polity to create a supposition about what it should have done if it were what you think it was. The problem is in the hypothesis.

To be even clearer, the idea of the Holy Lord evolved in ancient Mesoamerica because the most powerful polities embraced the idea, and led the way for the rest of the region.

And is the reason that there was a particular type of pressure on the Nephite polity--at the appropriate time period (see the Kingmen as the prime example).

That is why, even if we never find â??Zarahemlaâ?, we should be able to detect their presence in the overall evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview. This is why the question is not just â??can we detect the Nephitesâ?, but â??can we detect a Nephite-shaped hole in the evolution of Mesoamerica.â?

You have repeated this mulitple times, but never responded to the issues that lie behind this particular assertion. Your hypothesis is incorrect. The application of the data in time and place-inappropriate. Your reading of the Book of Mormon emphasizes an unusual context and extrapolates that to the norm. None of those things appropriately builds an argument.

There is a logic and evidence-shaped hole in your argument, first with the nature of the polity and secondly with the nature of the problem of ideological identification.

If we are to continue this, please address the real problems of data rather than simply repeat the assertions.

1) Address the problem of borrowed iconography

2) Address the problem of the aniconic Grijalva region

3) Address the problem of the parts of the text which contradict your idea of "control/influence" outside of the few years when the population was under direct military attack from an outside force intent on domination (and where mutual desire for preservation has been known to create stronger alliances that would otherwise have been made).

4) Address the problem of over-generalizing the Classic extend of the "Holy Lords" back on to the time period when that concept was developing, was not as prevalent, and when cities were experimenting with the idea (including rejecting it).

[beastie]

You are making assumptions about the nature of iconography that simply don't hold. Based on the way iconography is borrowed and repurposed (including most of what we recognize as "Christian" today), there is no way to know whether or not the iconography would have allowed for a Nephite-Christian reappropriation. On top of that, we have the aniconic nature of the Grijalva valley. For that reason alone your argument cannot hold water.

How did Jakeman think he detected BoM Judeo-Christianity in Stela 5?

How do Mesoamerican scholars detect the pattern of the Mesoamerican worldview in iconography from various regions?

How do Biblical scholars detect Christian symbolism in art even when they were borrowing Greek or Roman iconography?

How do scholars know what they know about Monte Alban?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

This has been a fascinating non-reply. You have directly ignored the questions I asked you that are extremely relevant to this issue and substituted questions for a response. I will answer these. I would appreciate it if you would make some attempt to answer mine.

How did Jakeman think he detected BoM Judeo-Christianity in Stela 5?

Now this is an interesting question. My proposition was that a Mesoamerican iconography could be appropriated into another context. In the case of Jakeman, he did precisely that, he interpreted a Mesoamerican iconography against a different cultural reading.

Of course, I disagree about his reading. However, the fact that he so read it, and the fact that he could so read it are simply examples of the issue that I have been stating. It is not only possible, but has happened many times, and has happened in both the Jewish and Christian traditions, that an iconography from a foreign tradition has been adopted and adapted.

The ball is in your court. Please explain how you are suggesting that a tree of life is always a Mesoamerican tree of life and cannot be a Book of Mormon tree of life.

How do Mesoamerican scholars detect the pattern of the Mesoamerican worldview in iconography from various regions?

Are you asking because you really don't know, or because you expect that because a particular iconography has been interpreted through Mesoamerican eyes that it is impossible that the same iconography could be recontextualized? I really doubt the first.

As for the second, you are forgetting the problem of recontextualization, a process which has even occurred within the Mesoamerican tradition. A feathered serpent is not always the wind god.

How do Biblical scholars detect Christian symbolism in art even when they were borrowing Greek or Roman iconography?

Now this comes closer, because at least you are beginning to see the problem. We know the difference between the Christian and the Greek and Roman because of historical context. We have the texts and the connection to the history--several things that we do not have when approaching much of Mesoamerican iconography. Note, for example, the name "Principle Bird Deity." How do you get such a name? Clearly because there is something missing that we cannot supply.

We can separate the Christian use of Greek or Roman iconography from the purely Greek or Roman because of other contextual clues which are available to us only because the tradition of Christianity has continued long enough into recorded history that we are aware of the contexts. Without that rich interpretive environment, we would not now. We could not know.

How do scholars know what they know about Monte Alban?

Since you have asked this several times, you seem to think there is something here. They know about Monte Alban in the same way that they know about La Venta. Based on what they see, the create hypotheses that explain the physical evidence. Without language, we have the best reconstructions possible. For example, there is a series of depictions of human forms at Monte Alban. For a long time they were called the "Dancers" because of the positions of the bodies. A more recent interpretation is sacrificial victims or victims of torture.

Why were there two dramatically different opinions about these figures in Monte Alban? Which is correct? How do we know.

We know about Monte Alban because conjectures are made on the basis of the physical remains. Those conjectures are modified by the next scholar who reexamines and reinterprets the evidence.

Is there something else about Monte Alban that you find so interesting?

Now, please answer my questions. Fair is fair. Here they some of them, for your convenience:

1) What would a Judeo-Christian influence look like between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400, without any direct contact with the iconography developed in the Old world for that tradition?

2) The borrowing and reappropriation of pagan symbols underlies much of current Jewish or Christian traditions. Assuming that there was no borrowing from the Old World (which the Book of Mormon cannot support for Christian periods), why would the Nephites act any differently from other Jews or Christians? That is, why wouldn't they appropriate an available iconography? (By the way, the borrowing of iconography and recontextualizing it also occurs among different Mesoamerican peoples, so we know that the concept was available during that time and place).

3) The particular region of Zarahemla is nearly aniconic. Even if you were to suggest that you might find some particular symbol, how can you find it among a people who do not create symbols for display? (the Jewish tradition was essentially aniconic as well, of course).

(edited to add the questions)

[Honorentheos]

I find both arguements interesting, if perhaps stalled out on re-stating a couple of points.

Perhaps I could suggest a smaller arena where those of us on the outside could compare your thoughts on the subject?

My suggestion would be to look at the people of Zeniff, and more specifically King Noah. It seems that the BoM text points to there being a very strong interaction between these people and the surrounding "lamanite" communites. Is King Noah a representation of a nephite people toying with a Mesoamerican kingship or some derivitive of such? Did mesoamerican kings tax their people? We have a description of King Noah having a form of preistly body that assisted him in religious matters - which kingly model is this most closely related to?

[Brant Gardner]

My suggestion would be to look at the people of Zeniff, and more specifically King Noah. It seems that the BoM text points to there being a very strong interaction between these people and the surrounding "lamanite" communites. Is King Noah a representation of a nephite people toying with a Mesoamerican kingship or some derivitive of such? Did mesoamerican kings tax their people? We have a description of King Noah having a form of preistly body that assisted him in religious matters - which kingly model is this most closely related to?

Zeniff had a council of priests as well as Noah. Noah replaced his father's set with his own. As for the nature of kingship, I do believe that you are seeing a case of a form in transition. It is hard to know just what kind of king Zeniff was, because he was more a Land of Nephi Nephite than a Zarahemla Nephite. In the way I read the text, the Land of Nephi had already begun to move rapidly into the more common forms of both kingship and social stratification that were more common to that region.

Regardless of what kind of king Zeniff was, Noah was certainly adapting to the Mesoamerican model. The evidence is in the elaborate building projects he understook and the ways in which he separated himself and his priest--elevated himself and his priests--from and above the people. That model is precisely the change that Mesoamerica is undergoing during this time period.

We have the translation of the word "tax," likely because it was the best word Joseph knew for what was happening. All kings have to appropriate something from the people they lead in order to supply their needs. What appears to have happened with Noah is that this process was increased and made more explicit. Again, that is the model of increasing social hierarchies that is part of the king-complex in Mesoamerica. It is also specifically an issue against which the Nephite prophets preach, so it is clear that they understood this pressure and actively resisted it in Zarahemla (although it was creeping into their culture as well).

[beastie]

Now this is an interesting question. My proposition was that a Mesoamerican iconography could be appropriated into another context. In the case of Jakeman, he did precisely that, he interpreted a Mesoamerican iconography against a different cultural reading.

Of course, I disagree about his reading. However, the fact that he so read it, and the fact that he could so read it are simply examples of the issue that I have been stating. It is not only possible, but has happened many times, and has happened in both the Jewish and Christian traditions, that an iconography from a foreign tradition has been adopted and adapted.

The ball is in your court. Please explain how you are suggesting that a tree of life is always a Mesoamerican tree of life and cannot be a Book of Mormon tree of life.

The point Iâ??m trying to make (with the Jakeman example and the biblical reference) is that scholars can, and do, identify different ideologies even when they use similar iconography. I want to emphasize this, because some apologists seem intent on insinuating that it would be impossible to differentiate between ideologies that use similar iconography. Yet the fact that Jakeman attempted to do so, and Biblical scholars have done so demonstrate that it is quite possible to differentiate between ideologies that use similar iconography.

To answer your question how could we tell a tree of life is a Mesoamerican tree of life and not a BoM tree of life, Iâ??m going to skip down to this part of your response:

Are you asking because you really don't know, or because you expect that because a particular iconography has been interpreted through Mesoamerican eyes that it is impossible that the same iconography could be recontextualized? I really doubt the first.

As for the second, you are forgetting the problem of recontextualization, a process which has even occurred within the Mesoamerican tradition. A feathered serpent is not always the wind god.

Of course I know that iconography can be recontextualized. My point is that scholars are able to recognize that it has been recontextualized.

Now this comes closer, because at least you are beginning to see the problem. We know the difference between the Christian and the Greek and Roman because of historical context. We have the texts and the connection to the history--several things that we do not have when approaching much of Mesoamerican iconography. Note, for example, the name "Principle Bird Deity." How do you get such a name? Clearly because there is something missing that we cannot supply.

We can separate the Christian use of Greek or Roman iconography from the purely Greek or Roman because of other contextual clues which are available to us only because the tradition of Christianity has continued long enough into recorded history that we are aware of the contexts. Without that rich interpretive environment, we would not now. We could not know.

The answer is â??contextual cluesâ?. If Stela 5 simply had the style of Mesoamerican iconography, but a context that was inconsistent with Mesoamerican ideology and was instead consistent with BoM ideology, then he could make a case.

As to whether or not â??we could knowâ? if there werenâ??t an historical tradition of Christianity, we have a lengthy text that provides extremely specific details on what stories would be consistent with the Judeo-Christian ideology that would be present, and itâ??s called The Book of Mormon. The BoM tells us what to look for.

So the real question is: does the Book of Mormon provide enough details that we could recognize BoM ideology even if it were presented in Mesoamerican style? I think the answer is clearly â??yesâ?, and I suspect you will say â??noâ?. Jakeman obviously thought the answer was "yes", but ignored the fact that the context of the stela was completely consistent with known Mesoamerican mythology.

Since you have asked this several times, you seem to think there is something here. They know about Monte Alban in the same way that they know about La Venta. Based on what they see, the create hypotheses that explain the physical evidence. Without language, we have the best reconstructions possible. For example, there is a series of depictions of human forms at Monte Alban. For a long time they were called the "Dancers" because of the positions of the bodies. A more recent interpretation is sacrificial victims or victims of torture.

Why were there two dramatically different opinions about these figures in Monte Alban? Which is correct? How do we know.

We know about Monte Alban because conjectures are made on the basis of the physical remains. Those conjectures are modified by the next scholar who reexamines and reinterprets the evidence.

Is there something else about Monte Alban that you find so interesting?

I kept asking about Monte Alban for two reasons. The first is because you stated that:

So, your definition of what you are looking for for this "mark" is anachronistic. Theoretically, the Nephites could have had a governmental structure as regionally powerful as Tikal (and remember that I am not suggesting this), but there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information.

Thatâ??s when I began asking about Monte Alban. Monte Alban does have written records, but we havenâ??t decoded them, (although scholars can recognize some place names and calendars) so we donâ??t have â??the kind of records that would give us the informationâ?. And yet scholars assert that they know quite a bit about the structure and power of Monte Alban. They know this from the â??dirtâ?.

BTW, it was in the nineteenth century that some archaeologists thought they were â??dancersâ?. Our entire understanding of the region has changed since the nineteenth century. The â??dancerâ? hypothesis never made sense, anyway, since some of the figures are clearly gutted. So today there is no controversy. Scholars uniformly agree that these are sacrificial victims of conquest. They even know that Monte Alban had no interest in forming political alliances with these enemies by the fact that the â??dancersâ? are naked and humiliated, not shown in their royal garb, in the manner that the Maya would show their victims. The royal garb showed an element of respect totally lacking in the Monte Alban figures. These are logical conclusions drawn without the benefit of a (decoded) written language. I was trying to get you to recognize that this statement of yours:

Theoretically, the Nephites could have had a governmental structure as regionally powerful as Tikal (and remember that I am not suggesting this), but there would be nothing that could indicate it, because they didn't leave the kind of records that would give us the information.

is simply not true.

There are things other than writing that indicate governmental structure and extent of power. I was quite taken aback when you made the above statement, frankly, because this is the type of statement someone who really has no understanding of, or appreciation of, the field of archaeology would make.

The second reason I kept pursuing it is because you keep asserting this that the Grijalva region is aniconographic. The Valley of Oaxaca is one of the most significant areas in the Grijalva region, and scholars know quite a bit about Monte Alban and the power it exercised, and it wasnâ??t aniconographic. Kaminaljuyu was in the Grijalva region, and it is not aniconographic. (and Iâ??ll come back later to why Kaminaljuyu is particular problematic for the City of Nephi) So it seems to me that your assertion that the Grijalva region is aniconographic is incorrect.

You sometimes are more specific in your assertion:

That situation is somewhat similar for many pre-Classic sites, but even moreso in the Grijalva valley, which in addition to not leaving much in the way of texts, doesn't have buildings adorned with the religious symbols and did not leave a rich iconographic legacy. There are remarkably few images recovered from Santa Rosa, for example.

The particular region of Zarahemla is nearly aniconic. Even if you were to suggest that you might find some particular symbol, how can you find it among a people who do not create symbols for display? (the Jewish tradition was essentially aniconic as well, of course).

It seems to me that the real assertion isnâ??t the entire region of Grijalva, but Santa Rosa in particular. Santa Rosa, of course, is Sorensonâ??s suggestion for Zarahemla.

So is Santa Rosa aniconographic as Brant asserts? Well, itâ??s hard to know because it is currently under water. Who knows what would have been discovered if excavations had continued.

I address the problem of Santa Rosa in detail on my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm#Zarahemla

Iâ??m not going to copy and paste all the information here because itâ??s so lengthy, but I do encourage people who are more interested to read the entire section. Iâ??ll just summarize here:

Sorenson bases a great deal of his Santa Rosa/Zarahemla association on the fact that Santa Rosa was a basic moiety, seemingly divided down the middle. He speculates that division represented the people of Nephi and the people already at Zarahemla. But, in reality, this division occurred in 600-500 BC, predating the arrival of the folks from the City of Nephi. So the influx of the people of the City of Nephi would have been a third group.

In addition, there is no evidence that Santa Rosa, a simple moiety/chiefdom,would have had the ability to exercise the influence of Zarahemla, whether in a state of war or not.

So it seems, Brant, that most of your argument is that Santa Rosa is â??aniconographicâ?, not the entire Grijalva region, although that may be due to limited excavation. Even with the limited excavation, scholars do assert quite a bit about Santa Rosa, and it is a very poor fit for Zarahemla in the first place. IIRC, you once agreed with me on that point, but possibly that is another thing youâ??ve changed your mind about.

Iâ??m dividing up my response due to length.

[beastie]

Then I am glad that you have let that one slide. We can no move away from the problem of political organizations and deal with the issue of ideology, a point (unfortunately) where your hypothesis has even more problems.

I want to be clear on why Iâ??m letting it slide. You have ignored, or interpreted in an unusual fashion, the evidences that demonstrate a level of social complexity and political control that you deny existed. Two examples â?? the forced armed service of the king-men, and the fact that Pahoran was Moroniâ??s superior. So there is a complete impasse, in my view, when you are willing and able to ignore, or creatively interpret, the BoM. Moreover, my point can be made without the point of politic control having been made. I may return to some details of that I didnâ??t follow up on later.

1) I have never suggested that there were not influential cities.

2) I have never suggested that the ideology associated with Mesoamerican kingship did not arise and spread during the pre-Classic.

Good.

What I have said, is that this spread was not immediate nor universal. I have give you the example of Cerros, where the form was adopted because it was available, not because of any economic or political dominance from a separate city. I have also noted that they voluntarily abandoned the system when it turned out not to continue to work for them.

I have also indicated that the Book of Mormon shows signs that the Nephites were also affected by this shift to a Mesoamerican style of kingship. That evidence is demonstrated in the particular nature of the things that they Nephite prophets preach against. The text shows a time/place-appropriate response to a city (like Cerros) that was under pressure to "be like everyone else." Unlike Cerros, they resisted. Like Cerros eventually, they declined the form.

All of that is found precisely in the conditions of the pre-Classic.

Your point entirely hinges on presenting the Nephites as a minor, insignificant polity, because if it were a powerful polity, its ideas would be the ones being copied by everyone else. I suspect we have reached a similar impasse as on the political control point.

We appear to differ on what we mean by "very influential." Remember, the occasions where they exercised the greatest "influence" were times when the entire region was threatened by an outside military invasion. Those are rather exceptional times, accounting for a small fraction of the years for which we have records. As for "influence" in the other years, that is less certain and less definable. It is most clear in the ease with which that "influence" was rejected by various cities.

First, you continue to ignore the fact that what a polity is able to do when under direct threat does provide information about the over-all power of the polity in the first place. I have to keep repeating this point because you ignore it.

For example, the US had a particular response to the 9/11 attack. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we most likely would not have invaded either of those countries unless we had been attacked, but that doesnâ??t change the fact that the manner in which we used our military provides quite a bit of information about what kind of polity the US is.

The fact that Pahoran was Moroniâ??s superior, and Moroni was in charge of a massive army that multiple polities had contributed to indicates influence, and it indicates influence that predated the military threat.

Second, even outside warfare, influence is repeatedly noted in the BoM. Even accepting your insistence that the chief judge from Zarahemla who was an authority figure in Ammonihah was simply for advice and counsel, and did not exercise any direct control, the fact that the leader of Zarahemla was giving advice and counsel to a polity 110 miles away indicates significant influence.

The fact that Lamanites who were directly quoted in the BoM identified with the Lehite origin story indicates ideological influence. (see, for example, Lamoni and his father)

The fact that multiple polities are identified as â??Nephiteâ? indicates influence.

The fact that it was automatically assumed that Zarahemla would defend Ammonihah indicates influence (see Alma 16:3)

The fact that the Nephites could â??giveâ? Jershon to converted Lamanites indicates influence, when Jershon would have been appr. 160 miles distant. This is true even if Jershon were uninhabited. It was indicated this land was beside Bountiful, which indicates Nephites had enough influence over Bountiful to â??giveâ? land right beside it to another group of people.

The fact that Zoramites near the border of the Lamanites defined their own beliefs in opposition to Nephite beliefs (Alma 31:17 â?? â??no Christâ?) indicates influence.

The fact that Lamanites called a city Jerusalem indicates influence.

[beastie]

Brant seems to assert that evidence of control and power exercised during war can be ignored due to the fact that is a response to a threat. I think this is a suggestion without merit, because, as Iâ??ve repeatedly stated, what a polity can do during war does provide information about the strength and power of that polity.

There is much we can learn about the Nephites in a state of war. We learn that they were influential enough that they directed movements of not only the army but a civilian group who were persuaded to abandon their homes for 7-9 years. We learn that they were powerful enough that they could actually take over vanquished cities. This, btw, is anachronistic during this time frame in Mesoamerican histories. During this period wars did not result in one polity â??taking overâ? another polity in some fashion. These types of wars occurred later, around 400 AD.

I discuss warfare in great detail here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesandpower.htm#Warfare

What Iâ??d like to focus on in this post is what we can learn about the Lamanites, and what that information means in context of ancient Mesoamerica, and in comparison to the Nephites.

24 Behold, we followed the camp of the Amlicites, and to our great astonishment, in the land of Minon, above the land of Zarahemla, in the course of the land of Nephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites; and behold, the Amlicites have joined them;

25 And they are upon our brethren in that land; and they are fleeing before them with their flocks, and their wives, and their children, towards our city; and except we make haste they obtain possession of our city, and our fathers, and our wives, and our children be slain.

Alma, Chapter 2, BC 87

Their fears were realistic, because twenty years later:

22 Behold, it came to pass that while Moroni was thus breaking down the wars and contentions among his own people, and subjecting them to peace and civilization, and making regulations to prepare for war against the Lamanites, behold, the Lamanites had come into the land of Moroni, which was in the borders by the seashore.

23 And it came to pass that the Nephites were not sufficiently strong in the city of Moroni; therefore Amalickiah did drive them, slaying many. And it came to pass that Amalickiah took possession of the city, yea, possession of all their fortifications.

24 And those who fled out of the city of Moroni came to the city of Nephihah; and also the people of the city of Lehi gathered themselves together, and made preparations and were ready to receive the Lamanites to battle.

25 But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it.

26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

27 And thus had the Lamanites obtained, by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities, by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites.

28 And it came to pass that they marched to the borders of the land Bountiful, driving the Nephites before them and slaying many.

29 But it came to pass that they were met by Teancum, who had slain Morianton and had headed his people in his flight.

30 And it came to pass that he headed Amalickiah also, as he was marching forth with his numerous army that he might take possession of the land Bountiful, and also the land northward.

31 But behold he met with a disappointment by being repulsed by Teancum and his men, for they were great warriors; for every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war, insomuch that they did gain advantage over the Lamanites.

Alma 51, BC 67

1 And behold, now it came to pass that our next object was to obtain the city of Manti; but behold, there was no way that we could lead them out of the city by our small bands. For behold, they remembered that which we had hitherto done; therefore we could not decoy them away from their strongholds.

2 And they were so much more numerous than was our army that we durst not go forth and attack them in their strongholds.

3 Yea, and it became expedient that we should employ our men to the maintaining those parts of the land which we had regained of our possessions; therefore it became expedient that we should wait, that we might receive more strength from the land of Zarahemla and also a new supply of provisions.

4 And it came to pass that I thus did send an embassy to the governor of our land, to acquaint him concerning the affairs of our people. And it came to pass that we did wait to receive provisions and strength from the land of Zarahemla.

5 But behold, this did profit us but little; for the Lamanites were also receiving great strength from day to day, and also many provisions; and thus were our circumstances at this period of time.

6 And the Lamanites were sallying forth against us from time to time, resolving by stratagem to destroy us; nevertheless we could not come to battle with them, because of their retreats and their strongholds.

7 And it came to pass that we did wait in these difficult circumstances for the space of many months, even until we were about to perish for the want of food.

8 But it came to pass that we did receive food, which was guarded to us by an army of two thousand men to our assistance; and this is all the assistance which we did receive, to defend ourselves and our country from falling into the hands of our enemies, yea, to contend with an enemy which was innumerable.

31 And those cities which had been taken by the Lamanites, all of them are at this period of time in our possession; and our fathers and our women and our children are returning to their homes, all save it be those who have been taken prisoners and carried off by the Lamanites.

32 But behold, our armies are small to maintain so great a number of cities and so great possessions.

Alma 58, BC 63

This is anachronistic. At this point in Mesoamerican history, polities were not powerful enough to take possession of a vanquished city, and the warfare engaged in during this period did not normally include a massive slaying of every inhabitant of the enemyâ??s city. This sentence, â??our fathers and our women and our children are returning to their homes,â? leaves no doubt that these verses were, indeed, discussing an actual physical â??possessionâ? of the homes of the conquered. There were different types of warfare in ancient Mesoamerica, but during this specified time frame warfare was mainly designed to capture nobles from the opposing polity that could be used later for sacred sacrifice, or, for the most powerful, to set up a system of tribute.

Polities that are able to actually take â??possessionâ? of a conquered polity in the physical ways described in the BoM are incredibly powerful polities. It takes immense political and military power to be able to control another polity, (we can still see this is so today), so this warfare did not develop in Mesoamerica later, when polities were attaining greater political and military power. Any polity that was able to actually take possession of another polity around 80 BC would have been the most powerful polity in the region.

In other words, the Lamanite polity that was able to take physical possession of not one, but several Nephite polities was immensely powerful â?? in fact, more powerful than any polities we know of during that time frame.

What does this tell us about the Nephites?

Lamanites did not view the Nephites as a minor polity, easily vanquished in such a manner. In fact, at times the Lamanites had to be forced to fight the Nephites, because they were afraid of them (see Alma 47:2-3). We also know that, many times, the Nephites were actually victorious against the Lamanites. They didnâ??t vanquish the Lamanites due to acts of terrorism, but rather through traditional warfare. This tells us something about the Nephites. There is no way that a minor, insignificant polity would have had the ability to conquer the most powerful polity in the area â?? even more powerful than known polities.

[Brant Gardner]

The point Iâ??m trying to make (with the Jakeman example and the biblical reference) is that scholars can, and do, identify different ideologies even when they use similar iconography.

This example does not prove the point you are tying to make. You are suggesting that scholars should be able to see the differences. In this case, Jakeman interpreted the stone according to his assumptions, but it is not a correct interpretation and does not describe, in its context, the meaning he ascribes to it.

So, while it is true that the iconography can be multivalent, it is not true that it is automatically distinguishable without the rest of the context that allows for the distinction.

I want to emphasize this, because some apologists seem intent on insinuating that it would be impossible to differentiate between ideologies that use similar iconography. Yet the fact that Jakeman attempted to do so, and Biblical scholars have done so demonstrate that it is quite possible to differentiate between ideologies that use similar iconography.

You are still missing the point. One only knows when Apollo is Apollo and when the Apollo figure is Christ based on other contextual clues. We only know those clues because the tradition of their use has been preserved. The actual depiction could be read either way. John Crossan shows a sarcophagus that is known to be Christian, but portrays pagan images. In the context, they are therefore reinterpreted. The reinterpretation comes from other information.

The problem in Mesoamerica is that we lack any connection with the "other information" that would allow us to make the distinctions, if we were to find them.

Of course I know that iconography can be recontextualized. My point is that scholars are able to recognize that it has been recontextualized.

Then you must not understand the history of how those recontextualizations were discovered. Some are still debated. For example the feathered serpent iconography was long interpreted backwards from the Aztec Quetzalcoatl, and much of it still is. It has only been recently that some scholars have attempted to read the information differently. The same issue came with the nature of the feathered serpent at Teotihuacan. It took a particular discovery to make the contextual data sufficient to alter the preconception based on the retrograde tracing of Aztec ideas.

Once again, the issue is that if any of these had been recontextualized to represent a Judeo-Christian concept, we don't even have the ability to understand which contextual clues are the result of the recontextualization and which are the result of a regional difference in the same ideology.

The answer is â??contextual cluesâ?. If Stela 5 simply had the style of Mesoamerican iconography, but a context that was inconsistent with Mesoamerican ideology and was instead consistent with BoM ideology, then he could make a case.

Interesting that you would be defending Jakeman and I am suggesting that he was wrong, but this is still an interesting example. The problem with Stela 5 is that it really is a tree of life. It could have been appropriated. If it were, there wouldn't be much of a way to know, save for the context of the rest of the iconography of the area.

This, of course, leads us to the problem of the Gijalva river valley, which does not have that kind of information.

As to whether or not â??we could knowâ? if there werenâ??t an historical tradition of Christianity, we have a lengthy text that provides extremely specific details on what stories would be consistent with the Judeo-Christian ideology that would be present, and itâ??s called The Book of Mormon. The BoM tells us what to look for.

I am familiar with the Book of Mormon. I am not familiar with the details of the text that tell me what iconography would be used to represent their religion. I would like to know what those are. Surely you aren't suggesting that a scene of a battle would be sufficient iconography to identify a Book of Mormon site?

So the real question is: does the Book of Mormon provide enough details that we could recognize BoM ideology even if it were presented in Mesoamerican style? I think the answer is clearly â??yesâ?, and I suspect you will say â??noâ?.

You are correct that I say no. I say no because the text never discusses creating any monuments that would have remained. The text gives no descriptions of any kind of artistic endeavor. No matter what you think might have been the case, it will necessarily be based solely upon your opinion without any supporting basis in the text.

Jakeman obviously thought the answer was "yes", but ignored the fact that the context of the stela was completely consistent with known Mesoamerican mythology.

There have been a number of LDS authors who have identified "baptismal fonts" as well. Shall we stick to what Mesoamerican scholars are able to interpret?

BTW, it was in the nineteenth century that some archaeologists thought they were â??dancersâ?. Our entire understanding of the region has changed since the nineteenth century. The â??dancerâ? hypothesis never made sense, anyway, since some of the figures are clearly gutted.

Right. The data did not change. Our understanding of the data and ability to "see" changed. That is the point of the "dancers." What was in the dirt was the same. Opinion changed based on differing ways to interpret the very same data. It will be "valid" until someone finds a better explanation--but the artifacts will not change.

So today there is no controversy. Scholars uniformly agree that these are sacrificial victims of conquest. They even know that Monte Alban had no interest in forming political alliances with these enemies by the fact that the â??dancersâ? are naked and humiliated, not shown in their royal garb, in the manner that the Maya would show their victims.

Now, notice the level of interpretation here, and where it comes from. This is an inference that is made on the assumption of comparability from a different place, time, and language. Perhaps there is sufficient Mesoamericanness that this is correct. It is currently a very good theory. The point is, it comes from the interpretation and not from the artifacts. There is nothing written there that tells us what it is. We "make stuff up," according the best ability to interpret the data. Necessarily, information is borrowed from the Maya because we finally have texts to help the guessing game. Nevertheless, it is a guessing game--pretty well played at the moment, but still one that relies upon interpretation, not solid fact.

The royal garb showed an element of respect totally lacking in the Monte Alban figures. These are logical conclusions drawn without the benefit of a (decoded) written language.

Logical until we change our minds again. Now, since the people of Monte Alban weren't allies of those they humiliated and captured, what kind of political arrangement did they have with cities who were their allies? Did they have any? Did the kings of Monte Alban send lesser courtiers to be kings over other cities (some of that happened among the Maya, did it here?)?

The problem is, we are limited in what we can learn by the strength of our inferences. Without a written language, we have to work with what is there.

Then, of course, we get to the Grijalva river valley--and there is nothing there to work with. All of the kinds of clues you are using to make your case are non-existent right in the place where you are suggesting that they would show that the Nephites have the "wrong" kind of polity.

There are things other than writing that indicate governmental structure and extent of power.

Right. Monumental architecture. Monuments with depictions (even without writing). The problem is that this is precisely what is missing in the Grijalva. The stelae that tell us so much for Tikal do not exist in Santa Rosa or Chiapa de Corzo.

So, if you are going to suggest that there is something there to give us those clues, I would like to hear what they are. Any list would be useful.

I was quite taken aback when you made the above statement, frankly, because this is the type of statement someone who really has no understanding of, or appreciation of, the field of archaeology would make.

Or perhaps someone who was familiar with the differences in the archaeological record between the Tikal region and the Grijalva river valley.

The second reason I kept pursuing it is because you keep asserting this that the Grijalva region is aniconographic. The Valley of Oaxaca is one of the most significant areas in the Grijalva region, and scholars know quite a bit about Monte Alban and the power it exercised, and it wasnâ??t aniconographic. Kaminaljuyu was in the Grijalva region, and it is not aniconographic.

We seem to have different ideas of geography. I will get more specific. Santa Rosa and Chiapa de Corzo were both excavated and the archaeologist listed the figurines found that the nature of the buildings. There was no monumental art. No temple gave an indication of any deity. There were very few figurines, and the few that were there seemed to be trade imports.

So, I will repeat it. Right at the place that we are talking about for the Book of Mormon, there are none of the markers you are talking about. All of your examples come from different places, different culture zones and (so far as we know) different linguistic groups.

(and Iâ??ll come back later to why Kaminaljuyu is particular problematic for the City of Nephi) So it seems to me that your assertion that the Grijalva region is aniconographic is incorrect.

I suggest that you read the archaeological reports. They are available online, as I remember.

It seems to me that the real assertion isnâ??t the entire region of Grijalva, but Santa Rosa in particular. Santa Rosa, of course, is Sorensonâ??s suggestion for Zarahemla.

I include Chiapa de Corzo as well. I examined a few of the small sites as well.

So is Santa Rosa aniconographic as Brant asserts? Well, itâ??s hard to know because it is currently under water. Who knows what would have been discovered if excavations had continued.

Fascinating answer. We go with "the evidence is there but not discovered." Can I use that the next time you bring up metallurgy? I think that would be fair?

The problem, of course, is that excavations were done and over more than one season. For both Santa Rosa and Chiapa de Corzo there are pretty good descriptions of the major buildings. It would be shocking if they missed major ones, though clearly the smaller dwellings wouldn't have been done. Still, it is on those most important buildings, the places where we find the iconography in other cities, that there is nothing.

The work also discussed the figurines that were found in those most important locations within the sites. Where other sites have a richer collection, these are quite poor. Objects such as stelae were found in other locations, but not here. Most of those in other sites were not buried to the point where they couldn't be seen, so it is doubtful that there were any there that just happened to be overlooked.

In addition, there is no evidence that Santa Rosa, a simple moiety/chiefdom,would have had the ability to exercise the influence of Zarahemla, whether in a state of war or not.

So, the evidence that Santa Rosa shouldn't be Zarahemla is that Santa Rosa doesn't appear to have had the kind of political structure that you think it would have had. Which, of course, is precisely what we have been talking about.

According to the way I read both the text and the archaeological evidence, there is no conflict. There is only a conflict if we accept your hypothetical government for which we cannot find support in the text or the dirt. Interesting.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant seems to assert that evidence of control and power exercised during war can be ignored due to the fact that is a response to a threat. I think this is a suggestion without merit, because, as Iâ??ve repeatedly stated, what a polity can do during war does provide information about the strength and power of that polity.

This really is getting overly repetitive.

You state that "what a polity can do during war does provide information about the strength and power of that polity." I have suggested otherwise. Where are we on this?

1) I have suggested that a response to imminent threats is an unusual situation that historically can call for an unusual response. I have offered the example of the unusual alliance between Sparta and Athens as evidence. That tells us that, according to known precedent, the situation of mutual destruction can create situations of alliance that are much stronger than at other times, and even between cities that were mutually antagonist in normal situations. Ergo, wartime cannot always tell us about political power during peacetime (I agree that sometimes it can).

2) Since we cannot use the response to war as normative in the Book of Mormon, we have to look at the political responses when there is not a threat of destruction from an outside military force. There are no indications in those non-stressed times that there was any specific control exercised over the cities that called themselves Nephite. In fact, there are examples where some sort of influence/control should have been exerted to preserve the coalition, and it expressly was not.

So. We have your statement that represents your opinion, for which you have provided no support whatsoever (save for the repeating of the mantra that the military situations show control). We have no examination or explanation for why the posited control you suggest is so manifestly absent in any example other than war.

Since I am basing my opinion on historical precedent for the military situation (versus your opinion on that point) and I am basing the rest of my analysis on the aspects of Nephite culture as they are represented in non-military situations that offer a wider range of instances of political situations, I claim the weight of evidence.

[beastie]

I think Iâ??ve provided enough evidence that, at the very least, the Nephites had significant influence in their region, so I want to return momentarily to the question of what we can figure out about their government.

The following verses tell us what the government devolved into, prior to the destruction at the crucifixion.

20 And there began to be men inspired from heaven and sent forth, standing among the people in all the land, preaching and testifying boldly of the sins and iniquities of the people, and testifying unto them concerning the redemption which the Lord would make for his people, or in other words, the resurrection of Christ; and they did testify boldly of his death and sufferings.

21 Now there were many of the people who were exceedingly angry because of those who testified of these things; and those who were angry were chiefly the chief judges, and they who had been high priests and lawyers; yea, all those who were lawyers were angry with those who testified of these things.

22 Now there was no lawyer nor judge nor high priest that could have power to condemn any one to death save their condemnation was signed by the governor of the land.

23 Now there were many of those who testified of the things pertaining to Christ who testified boldly, who were taken and put to death secretly by the judges, that the knowledge of their death came not unto the governor of the land until after their death.

24 Now behold, this was contrary to the laws of the land, that any man should be put to death except they had power from the governor of the landâ??

25 Therefore a complaint came up unto the land of Zarahemla, to the governor of the land, against these judges who had condemned the prophets of the Lord unto death, not according to the law.

26 Now it came to pass that they were taken and brought up before the judge, to be judged of the crime which they had done, according to the law which had been given by the people.

27 Now it came to pass that those judges had many friends and kindreds; and the remainder, yea, even almost all the lawyers and the high priests, did gather themselves together, and unite with the kindreds of those judges who were to be tried according to the law.

28 And they did enter into a covenant one with another, yea, even into that covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness.

29 Therefore they did combine against the people of the Lord, and enter into a covenant to destroy them, and to deliver those who were guilty of murder from the grasp of justice, which was about to be administered according to the law.

30 And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings.

1 Now behold, I will show unto you that they did not establish a king over the land; but in this same year, yea, the thirtieth year, they did destroy upon the judgment-seat, yea, did murder the chief judge of the land.

2 And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.

3 And every tribe did appoint a chief or a leader over them; and thus they became tribes and leaders of tribes.

4 Now behold, there was no man among them save he had much family and many kindreds and friends; therefore their tribes became exceedingly great.

5 Now all this was done, and there were no wars as yet among them; and all this iniquity had come upon the people because they did yield themselves unto the power of Satan.

6 And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets.

7 And they did cause a great contention in the land, insomuch that the more righteous part of the people had nearly all become wicked; yea, there were but few righteous men among them.

8 And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire.

9 Now this secret combination, which had brought so great iniquity upon the people, did gather themselves together, and did place at their head a man whom they did call Jacob;

10 And they did call him their king; therefore he became a king over this wicked band; and he was one of the chiefest who had given his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus.

11 And it came to pass that they were not so strong in number as the tribes of the people, who were united together save it were their leaders did establish their laws, every one according to his tribe; nevertheless they were enemies; notwithstanding they were not a righteous people, yet they were united in the hatred of those who had entered into a covenant to destroy the government.

12 Therefore, Jacob seeing that their enemies were more numerous than they, he being the king of the band, therefore he commanded his people that they should take their flight into the northernmost part of the land, and there build up unto themselves a kingdom, until they were joined by dissenters, (for he flattered them that there would be many dissenters) and they become sufficiently strong to contend with the tribes of the people; and they did so.

13 And so speedy was their march that it could not be impeded until they had gone forth out of the reach of the people. And thus ended the thirtieth year; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi.

14 And it came to pass in the *thirty and first year that they were divided into tribes, every man according to his family, kindred and friends; nevertheless they had come to an agreement that they would not go to war one with another; but they were not united as to their laws, and their manner of government, for they were established according to the minds of those who were their chiefs and their leaders. But they did establish very strict laws that one tribe should not trespass against another, insomuch that in some degree they had peace in the land; nevertheless, their hearts were turned from the Lord their God, and they did stone the prophets and did cast them out from among them.

I bolded the verses I find very informative:

22 Now there was no lawyer nor judge nor high priest that could have power to condemn any one to death save their condemnation was signed by the governor of the land.

This tells us that the Nephite system had a strict set of laws and a way of enforcing those laws. The laws were evolved to the point that lawyers and judges were necessary for enforcement. We see a strict hierarchy established in which the governor had authority over the lawyers, judges, and high priests.

2 And the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land.

3 And every tribe did appoint a chief or a leader over them; and thus they became tribes and leaders of tribes.

These verses tell us that they devolved into a tribal society, which implies that they were previously at a more complex level of development. We see from the description of a strict set of laws that had a bureaucracy for enforcement that this level of government sounds very much like what Arthur Demarest described as a â??stateâ? in his book The Ancient Maya, page 58:

Bands: small, loosely integrated groups of hunters and gatherers that possess a common territory in which they move nomadically. They have few differences in wealth or status and are characterized by reciprocal economic relations. Integration is through kinship or marriage.

Tribes: Larger societies, often with agricultural and/or pastoral economies, living in permanent (sedentary) locations. Tribes are often multi-settlement societies integrated by theoretical descent groups and voluntary association organizations (for example, warrior clubs, religious cults, fraternal organizations, etc.)

Chiefdoms: Often larger societies in which social integration is facilitated by the existence of prestigious leaders who direct warfare and storage or redistribution of food. Individuals are ranked in their status according to their degree of kinship relationship to the chief. Chiefdoms sometimes have ceremonial centers as the focus of religious activities, redistribution, and social integration.

States: Societies with highly integrated, organized, and centralized leadership with a governing body or rulers. The power of the ruler is backed by coercive force, law, and/or religious sanctions.

Compare the state level of organization with the simpler levels, particular chiefdoms: what differentiates the two is a governing body or rulers, backed by LAW, force, or religious sanctions.

[Brant Gardner]

There were different types of warfare in ancient Mesoamerica, but during this specified time frame warfare was mainly designed to capture nobles from the opposing polity that could be used later for sacred sacrifice, or, for the most powerful, to set up a system of tribute.

Don't you think you should be a little cautious with this statement? Are you aware of the thin threads of evidence that this statement would be based on? The more we are discovering about Mesoamerica, the more widespread and vicious wars were, which is quite contradictory to the statement you just made.

I agree that setting up tribute was the typical goal. What happened when a city refused to comply? We don't have any examples from the Maya due to the nature of the records, but when we get to the Aztecs we have better information. Since you have suggested that archaeologists get much of their interpretation by carefully moving information backward in time for the better documented to the lesser, surely you understand that the examples of Aztec actions where there are no Maya records tell us about the nature of the tribute system?

What did the Aztecs do? Destroyed. Remember Schele and Friedel suggesting that the Teotihuacanos increased the destructiveness of warfare? That wasn't a wholesale change, but one of scale.

Polities that are able to actually take â??possessionâ? of a conquered polity in the physical ways described in the BoM are incredibly powerful polities. It takes immense political and military power to be able to control another polity, (we can still see this is so today), so this warfare did not develop in Mesoamerica later, when polities were attaining greater political and military power. Any polity that was able to actually take possession of another polity around 80 BC would have been the most powerful polity in the region.

Still an interesting idea. The polity taking control was the Lamanite, which I have always agreed to be much more powerful than the Nephite. What the Nephites did was reconquer land that had already been in their possession, with a populace that was already theirs. That doesn't require the same kind of power. Perhaps you are confusing the Lamanite power with the Nephite.

In other words, the Lamanite polity that was able to take physical possession of not one, but several Nephite polities was immensely powerful â?? in fact, more powerful than any polities we know of during that time frame.

Now you are assuming that there was a single Lamanite polity. That doesn't work. During the timeframe of these largest wars, we have a Lamanite polity that is multiple cities with an overking. Those forms were developing at this time (remember, you have agreed that the forms of the Classic were developing during the pre-Classic). The description of the type of Lamanite polity fits with the nature of the later complex polities. Now, if your suggestion is that there weren't powerful cities, you must be forgetting El Mirador and Nakbe. We are in a time period for which the data are much sparser, but the descriptions of Lamanite systems fit with what is known to be developing (if not yet discernible because of the lack of preserved writing at this time period).

What does this tell us about the Nephites?

That the Lamanites were qualitatively different in political structure from the Nephites and that the Nephites probably couldn't have attacked the Lamanites in the manner that they were attacked.

In fact, at times the Lamanites had to be forced to fight the Nephites, because they were afraid of them (see Alma 47:2-3).

You are aware that this is pretty standard hyperbole in an ethnocentric text?

We also know that, many times, the Nephites were actually victorious against the Lamanites. They didnâ??t vanquish the Lamanites due to acts of terrorism, but rather through traditional warfare. This tells us something about the Nephites. There is no way that a minor, insignificant polity would have had the ability to conquer the most powerful polity in the area â?? even more powerful than known polities.

You have a mistaken idea of what happened at the end of the Nephite wars. The Nephites defeated the army and sent them back to their land. They did not defeat the Lamanites. They never moved into Lamanite territory. The best they did is recover what had been taken from them. That is very different.

The Aztecs were, during their time, an extremely powerful nation. Nevertheless, there were some cities they did not defeat. They fought, and lost. That cannot be used to suggest that the city they lost to was more powerful that the Triple Alliance. That is clearly incorrect. They lost a war for a particular territory, but that smaller city only had to defend itself on its home turf, where it could easily resupply itself. The Aztecs were strong enough that they could mount the attack. Those are very different things.

[beastie]

I am familiar with the Book of Mormon. I am not familiar with the details of the text that tell me what iconography would be used to represent their religion. I would like to know what those are. Surely you aren't suggesting that a scene of a battle would be sufficient iconography to identify a Book of Mormon site?

The Book of Mormon is FULL of religious stories. These religious stories provide enough context that they could be recognized in images, even if the iconography was Mesoamerican. We can recognize Jonah in the belly of a whale in the catacombs, which directly correlates to TEXT. Why not some of the BoM religious stories?

I think the iconography is a minor point, which is why I havenâ??t spent a lot of time on it. Itâ??s like the political control versus influence issue: my point doesnâ??t depend upon it, so itâ??s not worth lengthy belaboring. Even if you are correct, and the Nephites deliberately did not engage in iconography, their influence could still be detected in the impact it would have had on the evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview.

This is the real point of our impasse: you insist the Nephite polity was too minor and insignificant to have been one of the leaders in developing the worldview, and I insist that the BoM text does describe a polity that had significant influence over the region.

I do have the day off, so have a bit more time to deal with some of your details, although I do not want to spend my entire day on this, so I canâ??t guarantee Iâ??ll respond to each and every point.

[beastie]

have suggested that a response to imminent threats is an unusual situation that historically can call for an unusual response. I have offered the example of the unusual alliance between Sparta and Athens as evidence. That tells us that, according to known precedent, the situation of mutual destruction can create situations of alliance that are much stronger than at other times, and even between cities that were mutually antagonist in normal situations. Ergo, wartime cannot always tell us about political power during peacetime (I agree that sometimes it can).

If you agree that sometimes warfare can tell us about political power, then we are in agreement.

Since we cannot use the response to war as normative in the Book of Mormon, we have to look at the political responses when there is not a threat of destruction from an outside military force. There are no indications in those non-stressed times that there was any specific control exercised over the cities that called themselves Nephite. In fact, there are examples where some sort of influence/control should have been exerted to preserve the coalition, and it expressly was not.

Maybe if you didnâ??t repeat yourself, I wouldnâ??t either. My point is that the warfare tells us something about what that polity was capable of doing. Iâ??ve explained this ad nauseum; if you donâ??t get it by now, you never will.

So. We have your statement that represents your opinion, for which you have provided no support whatsoever (save for the repeating of the mantra that the military situations show control). We have no examination or explanation for why the posited control you suggest is so manifestly absent in any example other than war.

Since I am basing my opinion on historical precedent for the military situation (versus your opinion on that point) and I am basing the rest of my analysis on the aspects of Nephite culture as they are represented in non-military situations that offer a wider range of instances of political situations, I claim the weight of evidence.

I said military situations provide information about what the polity in question was capable of doing. As I said, if you don't get this by now, you won't.

You ignore the evidence that has been already offered. Cdowis brought up verses which obviously show that the Nephite government used force against its citizens to force them into the military. You dismissed them by saying they were dealing with a rebellion, despite the fact that there is no evidence of such in those verses. They just didnâ??t want to take up arms. The government forced them to. You outright ignored the verses I shared that showed that Moroni was accountable to Pahoran. You insist that Zarahemla's chief judge also being chief judge over a polity 110 miles away is fairly meaningless. You state that Zarahemla "giving" Jershon, 160 miles away, to converted Lamanites also means nothing. Now Iâ??ve offered even more verses that give a detailed view of Nephite government in post numbered 288. I look forward to how you explain away those verses.

So it's not that I haven't provided evidence. You just insist that the evidence means something entirely different, even if it contradicts the text.

[Nomad]

Gardner:

Don't you think you should be a little cautious with this statement? Are you aware of the thin threads of evidence that this statement would be based on?

This quote touches upon the real problem when you start trying to deal with beastie (or any of the other would-be â??expertsâ? on ancient Mesoamerica.)

They are making authoritative statements based on interpretations of data that necessarily consist of a minute quantity of actual data and an extremely dominant portion of interpolation.

Thus you see beastie and her kind making these supposedly undeniable â??statements of factâ? about the history of a people who lived two thousand years ago (or more) in a place for which we have almost no documentary evidence whatsoever, and where the archaelogical evidence has been subject to an environment peculiar in its capacity to literally decompose almost everything that is not made of stone.

Beastie repeatedly appeals to this kind of inherently unreliable and constantly changing body of so-called â??hard evidenceâ?, whereas Brant is largely making his arguments from, and concerning, the actual text of the Book of Mormon. The debate is therefore taking place in two very different realms that are often exclusive of one another.

The nature of the anthropological knowledge is in constant flux, almost to the point that there is only a fraction of the â??established factsâ? from fifty, or even twenty, years ago that continues to be included in the currently â??established factsâ? of 2009. That trend proves that we still know very little about things beastie would have us believe are long since established.

[beastie]

Don't you think you should be a little cautious with this statement? Are you aware of the thin threads of evidence that this statement would be based on? The more we are discovering about Mesoamerica, the more widespread and vicious wars were, which is quite contradictory to the statement you just made.

I agree that setting up tribute was the typical goal. What happened when a city refused to comply? We don't have any examples from the Maya due to the nature of the records, but when we get to the Aztecs we have better information. Since you have suggested that archaeologists get much of their interpretation by carefully moving information backward in time for the better documented to the lesser, surely you understand that the examples of Aztec actions where there are no Maya records tell us about the nature of the tribute system?

What did the Aztecs do? Destroyed. Remember Schele and Friedel suggesting that the Teotihuacanos increased the destructiveness of warfare? That wasn't a wholesale change, but one of scale.

Now youâ??re going outside what mainstream Mesoamerican scholars assert. Keep in mind that I am not making assertions on my own, I am repeating information that Mesoamerican scholars have shared in the books Iâ??ve read. Iâ??m going to repeat some examples from my website:

In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, Demarest and Conrad explain:

Classic Maya Warfare, Interaction, and Ideology

Warfare was another area in which Maya rulers had a managerial role, yet again the role generally focused on the ideology of political legitimation. Warfare had an early impact on the development of Maya society, probably as a pressure enabling chiefs to extend their power beyond kinship-defined systems. Yet its direct economic impact, positive or negative, appears relatively small when compared to its impact on central Mexico, Peru, or Bolivia (as described by other contributors to this volume). Warfare became less restricted during the last part of the Classic period and in situations of conflict across ethnic boundaries, but epigraphy and archaeology show that defeat in warfare did not usually lead to political domination of the defeated center. For example, it has been demonstrated that Quiriguaâ??s famous defeat of Copan (celebrated in many monuments) did not lead to territorial control of Copan by Quirigua or to an economic decline at Copan itself. Indeed, after this defeat, Copan went on to its greatest period of monumental construction. The same occurred after Tikalâ??s defeat in AD 678 by Dos Pilas. Tikalâ??s next king, Ruler A, was not a vassal of Dos Pilas, rather, he led Tikal into its greatest period of florescence.

Throughout most of the Preclassic and Classic periods, warfare was ritualized and culturally constrained to varying degrees. In most cases the spoils of war were probably sacrificial victims, the status reinforcement of the victory itself, access to some captives as slaves, and some amount of tribute (primarily in nonsubsistence exotic goods). As Freidel has pointed out, warfare was usually closer in its effects to interdynastic marriage than to territorial absorption; in other words, it was another form of elite interaction, alliance, and information exchange. Moreover, like all of the other forms of elite interaction, Maya warfare as deeply embedded in ritual and religious institutions. Like coronations, period-endings, births, funerals, and other royal events, warfare provided an occasion for the elite visits and elaborate public rituals that helped to hold the Classic Maya world together. Recent syntheses of deciphered Maya texts have detailed the elaborate web of ritual events and contacts between elites.

Still, the economic and political impact of Maya warfare in some cases could be quite significant, especially in the cases of the territorial expansion of conquest states like those of Tikal, Dos Pilas, and Caracol. Yet even these largest of Maya conquest states controlled extended territories for less than a century before the retracted to â??standardâ? size for Maya polities. In most cases the political or economic gains from warfare came indirectly from ideological effects â?? the enhancement of the prestige of the victorious ruler and his lineage. For example, the sacrifice of Copanâ??s high king enhanced Quiriguaâ??s prestige, legitimated the power of its dynasty, and increased the local power of its rulers over their own populace. The higher status of Quiriguaâ??s dynasty was ensured by the public ritual of royal captive sacrifice repeatedly advertised in public monumental sculptures and inscriptions. Thus, the dynasty strengthened its power over the populace and increased its ability to draw on the labor and loyalty of the citizens â?? an ideological effect that led to very concrete material gains. The same occurred in the case of the defeat of Tikal by Dos Pilas in AD 678. Tikal was not dominated, nor did it lapse into deeper decline, but the prestige of Dos Pilasâ?? Ruler I was greatly enhanced by the victory, which was celebrated in many stone monuments. The increased prestige helped to launch this young center on its own campaign of expansionism. (page 143)

Note that the possible â??conquest statesâ? were the incredibly powerful Tikal, Dos Pilas, and Caracol. Hardly minor polities. Part of this is just simple logistics â?? a polity must have a certain power base in order to be able to control an entirely separate polity in the first place.

Even the Tikal event that Schele speculated initiated conquest warfare turned out to be a bit more murky:

From Riceâ??s Maya Political Science:

It has long been known that central Mexico- most probably the enormous site of Teotihuacan â?? played an important but as yet undefined role in the Maya area during the Early Classic period. Early attention focused on what was presumed to be a key interaction with Kaminaljuyu in the Maya highlands, but more recent interest has been stimulated by epigraphic evidence of an â??arrival eventâ? of Teotihuacanos at Tikal on January 14, 378. On that day, acccording to David Stuartâ??s reconstruction, a group of central Mexicans, including Siyaj Kâ??akâ?? or Kâ??ak Sij (Fire Born, formerly known by the nickname â??Smoking Frogâ?), Yax Nun Ayuin I (First ? crocodile, formerly Curl Snout), and Spearthrower Owl arrived at Tikal. On this same day the Tikal ruler Cahk Tok Ichâ??ak I â??entered the waterâ?, which is presumed to mean that he died. Stuart sees Siyaj Kâ??akâ?? as a military leader sent by Spearthrower Owl to overthrow Tikalâ??s dynasty, consolidate power, and serve as a regent for a new ruler, Spearthrower Owlâ??s young son, Yax Nun Ayin I. Yax Nun Ayin I was installed on a day 5 Kabâ??an 10 Yaxkâ??in (September 11, 379), and on his accession monument, Stela 4, he wears a necklace of large shells and his face peers out from the maw of a huge feathered jaguar (?) head headdress. Above him a long-nosed deity head gazes downwardâ?¦.

What has gone relatively unnoticed in this discussion of the 378 event is the substantial presence of central Mexicans in Tikal for more than a century before this â??arrivalâ? and the relative lack of evidence for dynastic disruption in the following century. With respect to the former, a key variable in identifying central Mexican contact or influence outside the Mexican plateau is the presence of talud-tablero architectural facades. This term refers to the two-part construction of the tiers of a structural platform, in which a sloping batter (talud) is topped by a rectangular, bordered panel (tablero). At Tikal, talud-tablero architecture is first evidence in Mundo Perdido around AD 250-300, about a century before the 378 â??arrivalâ? of central Mexicans in Tikal. Interestingly, it makes its earliest appearance in connection with modifications to the radial temple in the E-group and shows up slightly later (AD 350-378) on three platforms in residential Group 6C-XVI, a short distance to the south of Mundo Perdido.

Despite the evident importance of these central Mexican dignitaries in the lowlands, continuities with prearrival canons of dynastic legitimation were maintained. While subsequent Tikal rulers traced descent from Spearthrower Owl in the male line, they married Tikal women of presumably comparable high-status royal lines, perhaps from the Jaguar Paw dynastyâ?¦

The imagery on stelae erected by Tikalâ??s post-entrada rulers is purely Mayan in concept, style and executionâ?¦.

Rather than being a formal military takeover of Tikal, this Teotihuacan arrival was clearly only one event in several centuries of interactions between central Mexico and the lowland Maya. (page 102)

Still an interesting idea. The polity taking control was the Lamanite, which I have always agreed to be much more powerful than the Nephite. What the Nephites did was reconquer land that had already been in their possession, with a populace that was already theirs. That doesn't require the same kind of power. Perhaps you are confusing the Lamanite power with the Nephite.

No, Iâ??m not confusing the two. I was specific in stating that the Lamanites took over the cities, and this indicates that the Lamanite polity would have been incredibly powerful for the time period. This gives us information about the comparative power of the Nephites, who repeatedly conquered the Lamanites.

I said:

In other words, the Lamanite polity that was able to take physical possession of not one, but several Nephite polities was immensely powerful â?? in fact, more powerful than any polities we know of during that time frame.

Brantâ??s reply:

Now you are assuming that there was a single Lamanite polity. That doesn't work. During the timeframe of these largest wars, we have a Lamanite polity that is multiple cities with an overking. Those forms were developing at this time (remember, you have agreed that the forms of the Classic were developing during the pre-Classic). The description of the type of Lamanite polity fits with the nature of the later complex polities. Now, if your suggestion is that there weren't powerful cities, you must be forgetting El Mirador and Nakbe. We are in a time period for which the data are much sparser, but the descriptions of Lamanite systems fit with what is known to be developing (if not yet discernible because of the lack of preserved writing at this time period).

I fail to see what suggesting that the Nephite were actually able to conquer multiple Lamanites polities versus just one gains for your argument.

Of course there were very powerful cities at that time, like El Mirador and Nakbe. Thatâ??s my point. The Lamanite polity (or polities) would have had to been the most powerful polities in the region â?? and the Nephites were able to, at various points in their history, win in wars against them.

That the Lamanites were qualitatively different in political structure from the Nephites and that the Nephites probably couldn't have attacked the Lamanites in the manner that they were attacked.

But the Nephites were able to successfully defend against the Lamanites, often resulting in massive casualties on the Lamanite side. This does not sound like a minor polity. A polity as powerful as El Mirador or Nakbe would have made short order of a relatively minor, inconsequential polity.

You are aware that this is pretty standard hyperbole in an ethnocentric text?

Hyperbole backed up by subsequent events. They had reason to be afraid.

You have a mistaken idea of what happened at the end of the Nephite wars. The Nephites defeated the army and sent them back to their land. They did not defeat the Lamanites. They never moved into Lamanite territory. The best they did is recover what had been taken from them. That is very different.

The Aztecs were, during their time, an extremely powerful nation. Nevertheless, there were some cities they did not defeat. They fought, and lost. That cannot be used to suggest that the city they lost to was more powerful that the Triple Alliance. That is clearly incorrect. They lost a war for a particular territory, but that smaller city only had to defend itself on its home turf, where it could easily resupply itself. The Aztecs were strong enough that they could mount the attack. Those are very different things.

The Nephites were able to successfully defend multiple polities and to enact massive casualties on the Lamanite side. Are you really suggesting a relatively minor polity would have been able to defend numerous polities, across a significant portion of the region, against one â?? or more by your suggestion â?? polities as powerful as El Mirador and Nakbe?

(edit on - please note that I did not say it meant the Nephites were stronger than the Lamanites. I said it tells us something about whether or not the Nephites were a minor, inconsequential polity)

[beastie]

This quote touches upon the real problem when you start trying to deal with beastie (or any of the other would-be â??expertsâ? on ancient Mesoamerica.)

They are making authoritative statements based on interpretations of data that necessarily consist of a minute quantity of actual data and an extremely dominant portion of interpolation.

Thus you see beastie and her kind making these supposedly undeniable â??statements of factâ? about the history of a people who lived two thousand years ago (or more) in a place for which we have almost no documentary evidence whatsoever, and where the archaelogical evidence has been subject to an environment peculiar in its capacity to literally decompose almost everything that is not made of stone.

Beastie repeatedly appeals to this kind of inherently unreliable and constantly changing body of so-called â??hard evidenceâ?, whereas Brant is largely making his arguments from, and concerning, the actual text of the Book of Mormon. The debate is therefore taking place in two very different realms that are often exclusive of one another.

The nature of the anthropological knowledge is in constant flux, almost to the point that there is only a fraction of the â??established factsâ? from fifty, or even twenty, years ago that continues to be included in the currently â??established factsâ? of 2009. That trend proves that we still know very little about things beastie would have us believe are long since established.

I'm not making "undeniable statements of fact". I'm quoting archaeologists who have spent their entire lives studying this region. Your argument is with them, not me.

If, in the end, your argument is really "archaeologists don't know as much as they think they know", there's little I can do to debate that. I'm simply debating BoM assertions that I know are in conflict with what the archaeologists claim to know.

It does seem to me that the trend seems to be toward "archaeologists are just guessing and don't really know anything for sure" on this thread. I've gotten used to that attitude from cdowis, so I'll get used to it from Brant, as well. If you're one of those people who view archaeology, as a whole, as some sort of pseudo-science, then there is no point in discussing any of it.

[Nomad]

beastie:

Now youâ??re going outside what mainstream Mesoamerican scholars assert. Keep in mind that I am not making assertions on my own, I am repeating information that Mesoamerican scholars have shared in the books Iâ??ve read.

Exactly!

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

That body of scholarship is oblivous to and largely uninterested in the questions that Brant and others are exploring vis a vis the Book of Mormon. It doesnâ??t ask the question of whether or not a Nephite civilization is conceivable within the larger (and therefore archaelogically attested) civilizations that would have existed contemporaneously with the Nephites. In order to consider that question, it becomes essential to fully and correctly understand what a Nephite civilization would have looked like â?? hence the necessity of carefully examining the text of the Book of Mormon. Which is, obviously, something that â??mainstream Mesoamerican scholarsâ? do not do.

Once one has an informed and textually-consistent understanding of the Book of Mormon, a Nephite civilization becomes much more plausible â?? even given the current state of scholarship â?? within the larger understanding of ancient Mesoamerican history.

Nevertheless, the honest and objective student of that history will acknowledge that we still know very, very little about the pre-Classic Maya and any other societies that were present at that place during that time frame and earlier (to Jaredite times).

[Nomad]

I'm not making "undeniable statements of fact". I'm quoting archaeologists who have spent their entire lives studying this region. Your argument is with them, not me.

If, in the end, your argument is really "archaeologists don't know as much as they think they know", there's little I can do to debate that. I'm simply debating BoM assertions that I know are in conflict with what the archaeologists claim to know.

It does seem to me that the trend seems to be toward "archaeologists are just guessing and don't really know anything for sure" on this thread. I've gotten used to that attitude from cdowis, so I'll get used to it from Brant, as well. If you're one of those people who view archaeology, as a whole, as some sort of pseudo-science, then there is no point in discussing any of it.

Archaeology and anthropology are, by their very nature, soft sciences. That is a given. Citing "archaeologists who have spent their entire lives studying this region" must necessarily face the reality of the inherent weakness of the disciplines themselves (in comparison, for example, to the "hard sciences" of biology or chemistry). That said, I don't believe, nor have I intended to imply, that "archaeologists are just guessing and don't really know anything for sure". But neither do I believe that you can authoritatively or logically say that the arguments put forth by Brant (and others) consist of "BoM assertions that I know are in conflict with what the archaeologists claim to know."

In the first place, I believe you fail to appreciate the extent to which interpolation forms part of the things that "archaeologists claim to know."

Secondly (and probably more importantly, in terms of this particular discussion) your arguments often assume things about the claims of the Book of Mormon which cannot be supported by a critical reading of the text itself. You, far too often, are attempting to discredit Book of Mormon claims that, regardless of whether or not they have enjoyed historical popularity, cannot be supported by a critical reading of the text itself.

Last of all, I believe you fail to appreciate how little the the things that "archaeologists claim to know" are even pertinent to the question of whether or not a relatively small society (never more than a couple million people ever falling under the umbrella of what could be called a "Nephite") could have existed independent of the other polities that would have been contemporaneously present.

[beastie]

The question is whether or not this body of â??scholarshipâ? is reliable or even entirely applicable for the purposes to which you apply it.

Arthur Demarest? Michael Coe? Linda Schele? Ross Hassig? If youâ??re questioning whether or not the scholars I cite are â??reliableâ?, then you know nothing about the field. While Brant may â??hintâ? that these scholars are over-reaching, I seriously doubt he would question their reliability. And, frankly, I have far more confidence in Arthur Demarest and the others scholars Iâ??ve read than I do in Brant (no offense, Brant, but Iâ??m sure you would readily concede youâ??re not in the same league with these authors).

That body of scholarship is oblivous to and largely uninterested in the questions that Brant and others are exploring vis a vis the Book of Mormon. It doesnâ??t ask the question of whether or not a Nephite civilization is conceivable within the larger (and therefore archaelogically attested) civilizations that would have existed contemporaneously with the Nephites. In order to consider that question, it becomes essential to fully and correctly understand what a Nephite civilization would have looked like â?? hence the necessity of carefully examining the text of the Book of Mormon. Which is, obviously, something that â??mainstream Mesoamerican scholarsâ? do not do.Once one has an informed and textually-consistent understanding of the Book of Mormon, a Nephite civilization becomes much more plausible â?? even given the current state of scholarship â?? within the larger understanding of ancient Mesoamerican history.

It doesnâ??t matter whether or not the Mesoamerican scholars make a detailed analysis of the BoM. Once youâ??ve reached a certain level of background knowledge yourself, you can make the comparison on your own.Itâ??s interesting that you make such a strong assertion as this: â??Once one has an informed and textually-consistent understanding of the Book of Mormon, a Nephite civilization becomes much more plausible â?? even given the current state of scholarship â?? within the larger understanding of ancient Mesoamerican history,â? when you donâ??t appear to have enough familiarity with the field to recognize the names Iâ??ve quoted as â??reliableâ?. So what, exactly, are you basing this statement on? Iâ??m betting youâ??re simply repeating what youâ??ve heard Brant, John Clark, and John Sorenson assert, without bothering to try and figure out if that it an accurate statement yourself.

Nevertheless, the honest and objective student of that history will acknowledge that we still know very, very little about the pre-Classic Maya and any other societies that were present at that place during that time frame and earlier (to Jaredite times).

Itâ??s interesting that this is what this thread has evolved into â?? believers insisting archaeologists really donâ??t know that much, anyway. The professionals who have studied this field for literally decades fundamentally disagree with your statement, that we â??know very littleâ? about the pre-classic Maya (or others).

Secondly (and probably more importantly, in terms of this particular discussion) your arguments often assume things about the claims of the Book of Mormon which cannot be supported by a critical reading of the text itself. You, far too often, are attempting to discredit Book of Mormon claims that, regardless of whether or not they have enjoyed historical popularity, cannot be supported by a critical reading of the text itself.

Perhaps you can explain the scriptures I quoted in post 288.

[hagoth7]

Itâ??s interesting that this is what this thread has evolved into â?? believers insisting archaeologists really donâ??t know that much, anyway.

Well, that's true. In the relative mix of things, archaeologists really don't know that much.

If they did, they'd stop digging.

Historians don't know a whole lot either (out of what there is to discover).

Neither do linguists.

Or physicists.

Or biologists. Etc.

As a civilization, we're just starting to get to the fun stuff. We're just beginning to ask the exciting questions.

[beastie]

Well, that's true. In the relative mix of things, archaeologists really don't know that much.

If they did, they'd stop digging.

Historians don't know a whole lot either (out of what there is to discover).

Neither do linguists.

Or physicists.

Or biologists. Etc.

As a civilization, we're just starting to get to the fun stuff. We're just beginning to ask the exciting questions.

Well, then, until we attain omniscience, some folks here seem to think that any speculation is warranted, no matter how disconnected it is from what we actually do know with our limitations.

[beastie]

Because this thread has evolved into "archaeologists don't really know that much, anyway", I thought I would share a post I wrote a couple of years ago addressing this viewpoint:

How We Know What We Know

Iâ??ve seen this line of thinking expressed so frequently in BoM discussions that I decided it was worth my time to address is. Iâ??m going to coin the term â??know nothingsâ? to designate the position that we really donâ??t know enough about Mesoamerica to make an informed judgment about whether or not the BoM really fits the background culture and chronology. The reasons given are normally that we really canâ??t know much about what happened thousands of years ago, that our inherent bias is too overwhelming, and that they didnâ??t have â??written recordsâ? (which, btw, is not an accurate statement unless qualified to time periods).

So how do the scholars in the field justify presenting the picture of ancient Mesoamerica that they pretty consistently do? The following are some comments addressing that point, made by some of the most highly respected scholars in the field.

First, they do realize they are working under certain limitations, but those limitations do not amount to â??know nothingnessâ?.

Maya Cosmos, Three Thousand Years on the Shamanâ??s Path by David Freidel, Linda Schele and Joy Parker

The ruins of Chichâ??en Itza are not the Chichâ??en Itza conceptualized by the ancient Maya. This city has become part of our contemporary experience. Because we modern pilgrims are ignorant of the intentions of the original builders, we impress our own meanings and aesthetic values on the Maya monuments, just as we always do when we contemplate masterworks of art from other cultures and other times. At Chichâ??en, all that is different is the scale â?? in this huge museum, visitors stand inside the artifact they have come to see. And our ignorance is convenient, for it allows free rein to the modern imagination. We see in these ruins what we want to see, be it affirmation of the romantic mysticism of springtime pilgrims, or the practical materialism of many modern scholars who devote lifetimes to studying the Maya. And when we begin to understand what the builders intended â?? through our decipherment of the Maya dedicatory texts, analysis of their images, and the study of their architecture and the artifacts they left littering the landscape, we learn that our imaginations have been constrained by our own cultural filters in tricky and deceptive ways. Though we have tried to interpret the intentions of the Maya within the context of what we see as â??civilized behaviorâ??, somehow their culture just does not make a â??fitâ? with the patterns of behavior laid down in our own world. We are forced to acknowledge that our perception of the past is always a prisoner of the present. Our reconstruction of the mountains inside the Maya mind is, like the pyramidal mountains restored by the careful archaeologist, an interpretation and not the true original.

(36)

But even given the constraints of our understanding, the scholars still assert that knowledge IS possible. I will try to share quotes from several authors that demonstrate WHY knowledge IS possible.

From the same text:

Once we have discovered the rationales of the Maya â?? through the words and actions of the Maya themselves â?? it is our heartfelt belief that we will also discover a central truth: that Don Pabloâ??s (my insert â?? a modern Maya) rickety altar of saplings erected in the parched woods, the ruined temples of Yaxuna built at the dawn of the Maya civilization, and the Castillo of Chichâ??en Itza raised in its final glory are essentially forms of the same thing. They are all symbols of the Creation of the cosmos. They are all instruments for accessing spiritual power from the creative act, and that power continues as a fundamentally human experience and responsibility. In this common purpose, they are signposts on the Maya road to reality stretching across the landscape of history. (37)

(off topic comment, isnâ??t that beautiful writing? I love it when experts can actually write in a captivating manner that helps even us dummy laymen grasp their points.)

More comments from the same text:

Sometimes the patterns of modern Maya spiritual belief are embedded in ritual actions and the Classic-period meanings are lost or changed. Sometime the meanings from Classic times remain but are attached to different symbols. Regardless of the transformational processes at work, we can still discern continuities in the basic structures. And these continuities will often elicit new possibilities of relating the past to the present. (57)

And one more from this text:

The lowland Maya began raising sacred mountain-pyramids of their own by at least 600 BC. They soon became masters at sculpting in plaster, the abundantly available architectural material of the region. By around 300 BC Maya master builders were decorating their human-made mountains with extraordinary cosmic images. These artisans, like their Olmec counterparts, did not yet put lengthy texts on their buildings. Nevertheless, we can identify the meaning of their designs because the Classic-period Maya who followed them retained the strategic symbolism of the early Maya builders quite faithfully. And these later descendants put text on much of their art â?? ranging from single glyphs to entire histories. We can extrapolate the meaning of these symbols and images backwards into the Preclassic Maya world with considerable confidence. (139)

Ancient Maya, The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization, by Arthur Demarest

Maya archaeology has shown unusual promise in revealing the patterning of a vanished non-Western society and the lessons that such patterns might have for contemporary social science. Repetition in architectural layouts, symbols, and activities provides one key to understanding Maya political structure and ideology. This ideological structuring of ancient material culture is more easily interpreted in the case of the ancient Maya because the ethnohistoric and modern Maya continued modified forms of these ancient traditions, beliefs, and rituals. Archaeological interpretation of patterning is now also being aided by the heiroglyphic texts found on artifacts found on artifacts and stone monuments, which provide information otherwise unattainable by the best archaeological research. Most such epigraphic insights concern elite culture and society, and only some features and practices can be extrapolated to the entire population. Yet, if we are careful not to naively accept and overemphasize their elite perspective, the inscriptions reveal particular aspects of Maya culture and thought, and they provide a timeline for major political events and influential trends of the Classic period. (100)

from Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World by Lynn Foster

When one thinks about the Maya civilization of southern Mexico and northern Central America, the adjective mysterious inevitably comes to mind. The mysterious Maya has been an epithet for this great people for the past two centuries at least. Early Spanish expeditions found the remains of great ruined cities and speculated that they were evidence of the lost tribes of Israel. Nineteenth-century travel writers explored the cities and echoed the same sentiments or brought the lost continent of Atlantis into the equation ; only a few travelers such as John Lloyd Stephens maintained that the cities and temples were built by the ancestors of the very people whose villages and towns they passed through on their journeys: the Maya. Even in the middle of the 20th century â?? when virtually all scholars agreed that the ruined cities in the jungle were built by ancient Maya â?? there was considerable debate about the origin and nature of Maya civilizationâ?¦

On the heiroglyphic front, major discoveries between 1958 and 1964 led to the discovery of the names of historical individuals and of the cities they ruled. These cities were governed by the dynasties of kings, and the magnificent stone stelae, altars, and lintels recorded their exploits â?? their births and deaths, their conquests and ceremonies.

Thus over the past 40 years or so, and especially over the past 20 years, the popular view of the ancient Maya has been radically transformed. The earlier view of a strange society unlike any other in Earthâ??s history has yielded to one that has much more in common with other world civilizations. Finally, the Maya have become less mysterious â?? and more human â?? with human strengths and foibles.

There has not been any single great breakthrough in the study of the Maya that has been responsible for this progress, although breakthroughs there have certainly been. Rather, the advances have been similar to those in most other fields of endeavour; they are the result of patient and painstaking work by dozens of scholars working in a variety of disciplines to find yet one more piece of the puzzle. And while the puzzle still has many missing pieces, both the â??big pictureâ? and many of its details are now clear and in focus.

The recent advances in our knowledge of the ancient Maya have been the result of research in many fields â?? archaeology, epigraphy, ethnohistory â?? and the result of learning from the contemporary Mayaâ?¦

(my insert, paragraphs citing specific breakthroughs)

A great source of our knowledge of the ancient Maya is the wealth of â??ethnohistoricalâ? data that survives about the Maya. From the Quiche Maya of highland Guatemala we have their great epic the Popol Vuh, which includes one of humankindâ??s great creation stories. From northern Yucatan we have the Books of the Chilam Balam, with their mixture of prophecy and arcane astrological knowledge, and a book of medical incantations, the Ritual of the Bacabs â?? to name just a fewâ?¦.

One of the great advantages in our understanding of the ancient Maya is the fact that the Maya are still very much alive. The contemporary Maya number in the millions, and there are still two dozen Mayan languages spoken today. In some cases the Maya are still practicing traditions that are thousands of years old. Our ability to learn from the contemporary Maya about their ancient forebears is in stark contrast to some other ancient civilizations, such as that of Sumer and ancient Egypt. (viii)

One last quote that is more explicit:

Maya Political Science â?? Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos by Prudence M. Rice

Archaeologistsâ?? interpretations of the past have their conceptual basis in analogy and analogical reasoning. An analogy is a similarity that permits comparison, a relationship between the familiar and the unfamiliar that increases understanding of the latter. Analogical reasoning is a type of inferential argument used in logic, linguistics, mathematics, biology, and many social science fields, in which â??one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect on the basis of the known similarity in other respects. Simultaneously objective, subjective, deductive, inductive, and abductive, analogical reasoning invokes comparisons between the unknown and the known on the basis of recognition of shared similarities or homologies in the relations between things, not in the things themselvesâ?¦

The most appropriate, credible, and enlightening kinds of analogies in archaeology, then, are specific rather than general, and are drawn from known continuities through the direct-historical approach. This process for investigating culture [pre]histories involves â??working back into prehistoric time from the documented historical horizonâ?. Its advantage is the greater â??prior probabilityâ? that a given analogy is correct because of known continuties in the compared cultures.

What is the best or most appropriate source of analogy for explaining Classic lowland Maya political organizations? My position favors the direct-historical approach, and thus I seek similarities between the Classic lowland Maya and their Postclassic, early Colonial period, and modern descendants in the lowlands. â??Most appropriateâ? does not mean perfect isomorophism, freedom from error, absolute â??truthâ? or proof of a theory. Clearly circumstances differ between the Maya in Peten (the modern political unit encompassing northern Guatemala) in AD 750 and the Maya in northern Yucatan in AD 1500-1950. And by adopting the direct-historical approach as the methodological armature of my study, I am neither negating nor ignoring the usefulness of insights gained from analogies to behavior, events, and phenomena drawn from farther afield. Nevertheless, I maintain that we can learn more about Classic Maya political organization by working back from the Postclassic lowland Maya than we can by beginning with African chiefdoms or feudal Europe. (p 4)

I have no doubt that some of you will not be reassured by the confidence of these scholars. I know that some of you will prefer to believe that they have overextended the possible knowledge, and that what they say doesnâ??t really matter much, in the end. It is my opinion that you would not be so dismissive of the knowledge of scholars if their analyses were more supportive to the Book of Mormon story, but that is just my opinion.