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

[Nomad]

Larry, as usual, makes an extremely important point: not only were all Nephite areas in the south under permanent Lamanite control by the mid-4th century, they were also under total, albeit intermittent, Lamanite control for varying periods of time in the previous four centuries or so. Even if we provisionally propose a â??borderâ? for Nephite lands as being circumscribed by the mountain ranges surrounding the Grijalva River valley, we cannot be sure that every ruin, during the supposed Nephite time frame, is attributable to Nephites. In fact, if we truly apply what we know about Mesoamerican conquerors, then we can probably expect to see a concerted effort, during such times of conquest, to effect specific kinds of cultural modifications upon the conquered. Not only that, but I would even expect to see some of those cultural impositions adopted by the conquered and retained even after the conquerors were expelled â?? such as, for example, a popular sport.

Speaking of which, I remain immensely curious to see if beastie is going to attempt to defend the proposition that the presence of a ball court in a Mesoamerican setting signifies that the local population was participating in ritual human sacrifice.

[wenglund]

One of the interesting aspects of beasties argument is that the Nephites do not represent a civilization that is a co-evolving sub-group. Technically, the Nephites, and their brothers the true lamanites, should have brought with them old world technologies, ideologies, and social structure that, from the BoM text, would seem more advanced and more desirable to the native populations.

A late example that shows how this should work if the book represented reality is in Alma. The BoM describes Nephite warfare using Nephite weaponry and armor that results in a significant military victory. It is only within a chapter or so of this event that we see the Lamanites do what you would expect a culture to do - advance their own technology in the form of armor to be able to respond.

Religion, art, and social structure aside, one does not usually see a culture, especially one so fond of warfare, give up these kind of advantages if they work so well. The fact that the spaniards seem to have arrived with another iron-age technology, with fire arms and canon being the main additional advantage, and more or less subjugated the region should provide another counter-example.

Other technologies we seem to be in need of finding include a writing system, near eastern economic strategy (wasn't lehi's family wealthy and probably skilled in the merchant arts?), and trans-oceanic capable sea travel. A "hole" from which these technologies all seem to originate would probably be the place where one would expect to find nephite.

This is an interesting point worthy of consideration. I am just not sure of how it explains certain facets of today's global economy, where with the existence of lazer-guided missiles and bullet-proof vests and satelite communication systems and the prevelance of hand guns, there are still segments of the world's population running around in loin cloths and shooting crudely carved arrows at each other. Were we to rumage throught the artifacts of these native villages I am not sure we would find much if any indication that the surrounding polity have advanced beyond 4th century BC technology. What might such a study suggest about supposed technological "holes"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

There is little doubt that sometimes the ballgame was recreational. However, scholars uniformly agree that the primary purpose of community ballcourts was the ritualized reenactment of an ancient Mesomaerican creation myth. This would result in human sacrifice.

Just for fun, visit this site that gives an entertaining introduction into the game. It doesnâ??t provide the details this conversation would warrant, but itâ??s a lot of fun.

http://www.ballgame.org/

The wiki site gives a good summary of the creation myth that the ballgame reenacts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_...ya_civilization

In Classic Maya, the ballgame was called pitz, and the action of play was ti pitziil.[58] Ballplayers were called pitziil.

The Maya religious narrative, the Popol Vuh, establishes the importance of the game to the Maya as more than just a sport and provides important analogues for interpreting the ballgame from a mythological perspective. The story begins with the Hero Twins' father, Hun Hunahpu, and uncle, Vucub Hunahpu, playing ball near the underworld, Xibalba.[59] The lords of the underworld became annoyed with the noise from the ball playing and so the primary lords of Xibalba, One Death and Seven Death, sent owls to lure the twins to the ballcourt of Xibalba, situated on the western edge of the underworld. Despite the danger the brothers fall asleep and are captured and sacrificed by the lords of Xibalba and then buried in the ballcourt. Hun Hunahpu is decapitated and his head hung in a fruit tree, which bears the first calabash gourds. Hun Hunahpu's head spits into the hands of a passing goddess who conceives and bears the Hero Twins, Hunahpu and Xbalanque.

The Hero Twins eventually find the ballgame equipment in their fatherâ??s house and start playing, again to the annoyance of the Lords of Xibalba, who again invite the twins to play the ballgame amidst trials and dangers. In one notable episode, Hunahpu is decapitated by bats. His brother uses a squash as Hunahpu's substitute head until his real one, now used as a ball by the Lords, can be retrieved and placed back on Hunahpu's shoulders.

The twins eventually go on to play the ballgame with the Lords of Xibalba, defeating them. However, the twins are unsuccessful in reviving their father so they leave him buried in the ballcourt of Xibalba. This links ballcourts with death: the ballcourt became a place of transition, a liminal stage between life and death. The ballcourt makers along the centerline of the playing field depicted mythical scenes of the ballgame, often bordered by a quatrefoil that marked an opening of a portal into another world.

There is zero doubt among scholars that Classic ballgames were absolutely associated with human sacrifice, notably decapitation. Of course there is always less iconography for earlier time periods, although there are many courts that have been found from the Olmec period onward. But there is no legitimate reason to completely decouple human sacrifice from the ballgame due to the fact that scholars are certain that the ballgame originated as a sacred ritual to reenact the Hero Twin myth shared above, and evidence of that myth can not only be found very early in Mesoamerican history, but even beyond the Mesoamerican region, spanning into the North America. It was a very powerful and successful worldview. We even have preclassic evidence from the region now suggested as the Nephite region, Izapa. The name should sound familiar due to Jakemanâ??s stela, but the reality is that there is quite a bit of imagery from Izapa that can be directly connected to ancient Mesoamerican myths. This includes not only Jakemanâ??s stela, but stela 67 that shows a scene on the ballcourt with One Hunapa from above. Scholars cannot give an exact date for these monuments and stela, but suggest it was around 300 BC. In fact, some scholars suggest that Izapa may have even been the point of origin of these myths.

See here:

http://www.mesoweb.com/reports/Izapa.pdf

The origins of Izapa circa 1500 B.C. remained buried and forgotten for many centuries after its abandonment somewhere around A.D. 1200. Nevertheless, at this site you can recognize elements that permit you to infer, if not the origins, at least one of the earliest manifestations of one of the cosmogonic and creation myths that gave unity and cultural identity to the peoples of southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. In some of the extraordinary sculptured monuments discovered at Izapa, scholars have identified elements and characters from the Popol Vuh, the sacred book of the Quiche Maya of Guatemala.

This is exactly the phenomenon I keep referencing â?? the most powerful polities of the period are the ones that seeded the worldview of the rest of the region. Brant earlier mentioned Cerros, which also has early imagery in the late preclassic connecting the ballgame to the Hero Twin myth and human sacrifice.

So while there is less direct evidence for the preclassic period overall, to insist that one can â?? without any justification â?? completely decouple the ballgame from human sacrifice is yet another example of a fundamental disrespect for the entire field studying ancient Mesoamerica.

Of course I have other citations I could share (one of my books is solely about the Mesoamerican ballgame), at this point I donâ??t think itâ??s worth my time.

[beastie]

This is an interesting point worthy of consideration. I am just not sure of how it explains certain facets of today's global economy, where with the existence of lazer-guided missiles and bullet-proof vests and satelite communication systems and the prevelance of hand guns, there are still segments of the world's population running around in loin cloths and shooting crudely carved arrows at each other. Were we to rumage throught the artifacts of these native villages I am not sure we would find much if any indication that the surrounding polity have advanced beyond 4th century BC technology. What might such a study suggest about supposed technological "holes"?

Are these primitive native villages in constant, direct contact with the more technologically advanced global polities? Or is part of the reason they remain so primitive due to their isolated state?

[beastie]

I think you are intelligent enough to anticipate my question, whether this ritual of decapitation occurred during the time period under consideration, or whether it developed in the late pre-classic.

IOW, we have something originally as a sport of "church basketball", which later developed into a violent sport. Remember we transitioned from the several hundred years of the Golden Age into the War of Extermination in just a few decades. And, according to the BOM, the Lamanites conducted war among themselves, so this was a very violent period which Mormon tells us included human sacrifice.

Finally, I would question whether this ritual was actually a human sacrifice, or just an act of violence. Mormon was talking about something very involuntary, as a result of war on helpless captives including women and children. Not as active participants of a bloody sport, perhaps similar to the gladiators of Rome.

Do you consider the gladiatorial events of Rome as "human sacrifice"?

Anyway, very interesting, but not there yet.

Comparing this to church basketball is ludicrous.

The Mesoamerican ballgame was primarily a religious ceremony, meant to establish relationships of power between polities. Although it was a brutal game, the human sacrifice was an actual act of sacrifice, not accidental deaths due to the brutality of the game.

BTW, your ability to completely ignore citations I already provided on post 320 is part of the reason I think it would be a waste of time for me to provide even more.

From The Code of Kings by Schele and Mathews, page 73:

QUOTE

In Mesoamerica, the ballgame had a sacred function related directly to the myths of Creation and Origin. The Maize God died and was reborn in the ballcourt. The Maya defined the ballcourt as a crack in the top of a mountain or in the carapace of the Cosmic Turtle, because these were also conceived as rebirth places of the Maize God. People went down this crack to contact their ancestors and consult oracular deities. The Maya and other Mesoamericans negotiated and sealed alliances in the ballcourt, and captured kings died by sacrifice in the ballcourt.

From The Mesoamerican Ballgame edited by Scarborough and Wilcox, page 196 from Peirre Agrinierâ??s article The Ballcourts of Southern Chiapas, Mexico:

QUOTE

Evidence of the ballgame in our delimited region ranges from architectural ballcourts, to monumental stone sculpture bearing explicit ballgame iconography, to portable ballgame paraphernalia replicated in stone, to thematically decorated pottery. Initial ballgame themes appear during the Late Preclassic and Protoclassic (500BC- AD200), intensify as a trait complex during the Teotihuacan contact period at the outset of the Middle Classic (AD 400), and continue to the end of the Late Classic. During the Postclassic there is an absence of ballgame data on the coast, though they persist in the adjacent highlands.

More of a mytho-religious ritual than a sport, the game usually culminated in human sacrifice â?? normally decapitation.

[beastie]

One of the interesting aspects of beasties argument is that the Nephites do not represent a civilization that is a co-evolving sub-group. Technically, the Nephites, and their brothers the true lamanites, should have brought with them old world technologies, ideologies, and social structure that, from the BoM text, would seem more advanced and more desirable to the native populations.

A late example that shows how this should work if the book represented reality is in Alma. The BoM describes Nephite warfare using Nephite weaponry and armor that results in a significant military victory. It is only within a chapter or so of this event that we see the Lamanites do what you would expect a culture to do - advance their own technology in the form of armor to be able to respond.

Religion, art, and social structure aside, one does not usually see a culture, especially one so fond of warfare, give up these kind of advantages if they work so well. The fact that the spaniards seem to have arrived with another iron-age technology, with fire arms and canon being the main additional advantage, and more or less subjugated the region should provide another counter-example.

Other technologies we seem to be in need of finding include a writing system, near eastern economic strategy (wasn't lehi's family wealthy and probably skilled in the merchant arts?), and trans-oceanic capable sea travel. A "hole" from which these technologies all seem to originate would probably be the place where one would expect to find nephite.

This is a good point, and one that Brant has offered himself here:

There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/030731fair.html

In real life, this makes perfect sense. Nephite definitely had metallurgy skills: why would he not have used and shared these skills, to enhance the survival and success of his people?

The problem with Brantâ??s statement here (and Iâ??ve discussed this with him before so he knows my criticism) is that he made this statement without any sort of qualification warning the reader that there is no evidence of metallurgy at this early point in Mesoamerican history. Even if he then went on to assure readers that he has full confidence such evidence will be found one day, full disclosure would seem to dictate sharing the current lack of evidence. What Kaminaljuyu (the proposed site for the City of Nephi) used to trade and increase wealth and social stratification was obsidian. This is a skill completely native to Mesoamerica. However, the natives would have had to teach this valuable skill to Nephi, and not the other way around, which seems to negate one of Brantâ??s primary points â?? that Nephi had something of value to offer the natives to persuade them to accept him â?? a quite alien being â?? as their king. So what, exactly, did Nephi have to offer the natives that made him so valuable? A new religion? This would have been the most impressive conversion miracle in the entire BoM, and it goes completely unmentioned.

One minor point, however â?? there is a writing system in Mesoamerica, just not the right one.

[Zakuska]

Are these primitive native villages in constant, direct contact with the more technologically advanced global polities? Or is part of the reason they remain so primitive due to their isolated state?

OR... they where inhabited by the lamanite equivalents of the Ahmesh.

[wenglund]

Are these primitive native villages in constant, direct contact with the more technologically advanced global polities? Or is part of the reason they remain so primitive due to their isolated state?

Those are excellent questions. Other questions also come to mind, like:

a) Do the natives have the resources needed to acquire and effectively utilize the advanced technology were they to have been exposed to it?

b-) Is the technology workable given their lifestyle were they to have been exposed to it? What I mean by this is, while massive and technologically advanced fortesses and armiments may work well for relatively stationary people, they may not work so well for nomadic people. Can you imagine a tribesman trying to cart a howitzer around the jungles of South America?

c) Would the natives value the advanced technology over their current circumstances were they exposed to it? (some people may actually prefer a simple and rudamentary lifestyle over a technologically advanced one.)

d) Might the culture and/or religious beliefs imped adoption of certain technology were they to have been exposed to it? (The Amish come to mind, but also as a VISTA Volunteer I encountered several immigrants who declined to learn about computers for fear that there were "ghosts in the box" which made things magically appear on the computer screen.

I could go on. But, hopefully I have made the point that there are a number of reasons why a "native population" may not adopt imported technology.

This leads to my next question. Do you think we can ascertain the answers to your's and my questions above by looking solely at artifacts that the primitive native villagers may leave behind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

This leads to my next question. Do you think we can ascertain the answers to your's and my questions above by looking solely at artifacts that the primitive native villagers may leave behind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, now you've plum stolen my next question.

[beastie]

a) Do the natives have the resources needed to acquire and effectively utilize the advanted technology were they to have been exposed to it?

Is the technology workable given their lifestyle were they to have been exposed to it? What I mean by this is, while massive and technologically advanced fortesses and armiments may work well for relatively stationary people, they may not work so well for nomadic people. Can you imagine a tribesman trying to cart a howitzer around the jungles of South America?

c) Would the natives value the advanced technology over their current circumstances were they exposed to it? (some people may actually prefer a simple and rudamentary lifestyle over a technologically advanced one.)

d) Might the culture and/or religious beliefs imped adoption of certain technology were they to have been exposed to it? (The Amish come to mind, but also as a VISTA Volunteer I encountered several immigrants who declined to learn about computers for fear that there were "ghosts in the box" which made things magically appear on the computer screen.

I could go on. But, hopefully I have made the point that there are a number of reasons why a "native population" may not adopt imported technology.

This leads to my next question. Do you think we can ascertain the answers to your's and my questions above by looking solely at artifacts that the primitive native villagers may leave behind?

a â?? artifacts in combination with sufficient data about available resources of the time period should be enough to ascertain this issue. Deanne Matheny did this in response to Sorenson.

b- artifacts in combination with sufficient data about climate and geography should suffice. Matheny also addressed this.

C & d would require additional information along with artifacts. It would be very helpful to have a 500 page document from the time period to provide more information.

Of course, the BoM does help us on this point:

2 Nephi 5

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

[beastie]

1.Matheny's stance is often ethnocentric, visibly failing to appreciate how Nephite culture differed from that of the modern Western world. This results in projecting back upon the text her own unjustified notions.

2. She neglects to pay careful attention to the data and arguments in my writings.

3. Her statements are often inadequately documented or explained; that is, she appears to be ignorant of, or at least to omit, crucial current data, as well as to ignore optimal logic and scholarly methods.

4. She readily accepts, or actually prefers, "authoritative" assertions instead of discerning and correcting errors of fact, interpretation, and theory independentlyâ??the hallmark of a genuine scholar.

5. There are gaps in her grasp of the epistemology and history of our shared field, Mesoamerican archaeology/ anthropology; consequently, she appears naive about its status and limitations.

The following are the major "problem" areas noted:

1. The set of directions I employ in my model does not fit what Matheny considers a "standard system of cardinal directions" which she supposes was used in Bible lands, by Book of Mormon peoples, in Mesoamerica, and in the modern world.

2. Jaredite and Nephite metalworking referred to in the Book of Mormon fails to match the picture she has in mind of Mesoamerican metallurgy.

3. She believes certain weapons, especially swords, mentioned in the Book of Mormon were of metal, but she is not aware of Mesoamerican parallels for weapons she thinks are indicated by certain words in the scripture.

4. Tents are often mentioned in the Book of Mormon. No evidence for a tradition of tent use exists for Mesoamerica, she says.

5. She reads the Book of Mormon as indicating that "economically important plants" were brought from the Old World, but these have not been found in Mesoamerica, she asserts.

6. Animals which she believes are referred to in the Book of Mormon are not familiar to her from Mesoamerica.

7. She says that the site of Santa Rosa, Chiapas, proposed by me as a plausible candidate for the city of Zarahemla, has already been excavated and what was learned does not agree with how she thinks the scripture characterizes Zarahemla.

8. She does not believe that Mesoamerican archaeology provides evidence for cultures comparable to what the scripture describes for the Jaredites of the third millennium B.C.

Have you read Mathenyâ??s essay, anijen? Most of his assertions can easily be disproven by simply reading her essay. Number 1, of course, is too vague to judge without at least one example. Numbers 2 and 3 are simply untrue. She does pay careful attention to his data, and she does provide documentation. Number 4 is too vague to judge, and sounds suspiciously like an invitation to disregard the work of known experts, which, ironically, would contradict number 3 (provide documentation). Number 5 is too vague without concrete examples.

You can get some idea of the quality of her rebuttal by the portions Iâ??ve cited on my website. I mention her in the metallurgy section as well as the power and polities section.

Here are just two examples from the metallurgy section:

Dr. Sorenson does offer specific pieces of evidence that he believes supports the theory that advanced metallurgy existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period. Matheny dealt with two of these assertions in her essay, and Sorenson did not refute this information in his rebuttal.

â??What may be the oldest piece of metal from Mesoamerica (from the site of Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico) noted by Sorenson may date as early as about the first century B.C.E. (1985, 278). However, I know of no confirmation of a date that early. In fact it has been suggested by Emil Haury, one of the project archaeologists although not the one who excavated the piece, that the metal was from an Aztec reuse of a Preclassic mound (1975, 199). Additionally there is no evidence that the artifact singled out by Sorenson was produced in Mesoamerica. Even if this piece should prove to have been produced in the proper time (Late Preclassic period0 and place, we would still be left with 2,900 years of Nephite and Jaredite metallurgy unaccounted for in the archaeological record.â?

And later:

"The question that has again not been considered is whether the specimens were of local manufacture or represent trade pieces from lower Central America. The majority of the specimens date to Late Classic times falling outside of the Book of Mormon period. The few that are genuinely Early Classic or slightly earlier seem to be trade pieces not produced in the area. We are still left with virtually the entire span of time covered by the Book of Mormon events with no metallurgy in the area chosen by Sorenson.

Among the specimens in Sorensonâ??s â??Iâ? category are some copper finger rings from the site of La Libertad in Chiapas, Mexico. Sorenson (1992b, 46, 75) notes that Donald E. Miller (1977, 19) one of the principal investigators at the site, reported two Classic period burials from near the surface of a mound and a Postclassic burial containing the rings from near the surface of another mound top. Sorenson suggests that the presence of the metal alone is not enough to make it Postclassic and states that there is no other evidence at the site for a Postclassic presence. He reassigns it to the Late Classic period at C.E. 600-900. La Libertad is a particularly interesting site because it not only falls within the area of Sorensonâ??s model but has been advanced as a candidate for the city of Manti from the Book of Mormon. Several seasons of investigations were carried out at La Libertad by the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) in the mid-1970s as a part of an extensive project in the Upper Grijalva Basin. While several preliminary papers have been produced concerning the site and one publication about the lithic artifacts (Clark 1988), information about most of the excavations is currently under preparation for publication. As a part of the NWAF team that mapped and excavated at La Libertad in 1975, I participated in the excavation of a burial near the surface of a low mound which contained a large copper bell as an offering. Miller, who is currently preparing material from La Libertad for publication, provided the following information (Miller 1992). During the 1976 season many more burials were located including Burial 26 which contained the copper rings mentioned by Sorenson. There is no reason to suppose that these burials pertain to the Classic period. Explorations in the immediate area of La Libertad revealed the presence of a Postclassic site, within a few hundred meters of the ceremonial precinct, with a considerable quantity of pottery fragments on the surface. Other burials at La Libertad included complex Late Preclassic burials and Late Classic burials, none of which contained any metal artifacts. Upon comparing the grave types, orientation and furniture of those burials assigned to the Classic and Postclassic periods, there are obvious differences. As far as the excavators are concerned, there is no reason to assign the metal specimens from La Libertad to any period earlier than the Postclassic period.â?

Seriously, anijen â?? can you read this small portion of her essay here and agree with Sorenson that she didnâ??t address his details nor document her assertions? I strongly recommend you read her article for yourself, rather than take Dr. Sorensonâ??s word for its quality.

[Nomad]

beastie,

I actually have much more to say in response to your defense of the assertion concerning the essential equivalence of the presence of ball courts and the practice of human sacrifice throughout ancient Mesoamerica.

However, I have a few specific questions (which I will delineate one at a time) to pose to you before I provide my full reply:

1. How do we know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts? Or, in other words, what is the evidence that provides us with this knowledge?

[beastie]

1. How do we know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts? Or, in other words, what is the evidence that provides us with this knowledge?

Neither I nor the authors I cited claimed to "know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts."

[Nomad]

Neither I nor the authors I cited claimed to "know of the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts."

???? !!!!!

But you're telling us that human sacrifice was part and parcel of the "rules" of the game!

What was the meaning of this game?

What was the point?

Surely you must know what "mainstream scholars" tell us about the subject matter.

There is much that is and has been written over the years about the nature of this game.

So, I ask again, what was its meaning to those who played it? How was it played? What rules governed its play? How did one team "win"? What did "winning" mean?

You've been making bold and broad assertions about the seemingly undeniable connection between this game and human sacrifice. You've been portraying yourself as a knowledgeable person regarding these things, and now you're trying to tell us that neither you nor the authors you cite claim to know "the rules and specific manner of the game played on these ball courts"?

To say I'm disappointed in your response would be an understatement. I was counting on you to enlighten us as to the extensive evidence supporting your assertions. What is the nature of the textual evidence, epigraphic and otherwise, for your assertions and those of your sources concerning the rules and specific manner of this celebrated Mesoamerican ball game?

If you want to back out gracefully (as it were) at this point, I'll understand, but I must admit I will remain just a bit surprised at how quickly you chose to retreat in the face of the slightest of opposition.

[beastie]

Aren't you the fellow who doesn't like strawmen?

I'll come back tomorrow with data on how the scholars know that sacrifice was part of Mesoamerican ballgames - which is exactly what I claimed, and what I will defend.

[Nomad]

Aren't you the fellow who doesn't like strawmen?

I'll come back tomorrow with data on how the scholars know that sacrifice was part of Mesoamerican ballgames - which is exactly what I claimed, and what I will defend.

I was certain that a star-eating dragon like yourself could do better.

I sincerely look forward to your reply.

[cdowis]

1. I missed the answer to my question -- is it your opinion that the Romans practiced human sacrifice in the gladitorial games. Do historians "universally agree" with "zero doubt" that the Romans practiced human sacrifice of gladiators, the Christians, of the leaders of the defeated tribes.

"captured kings died by sacrifice in the ballcourt." "More of a mytho-religious ritual than a sport, the game usually culminated in human sacrifice – normally decapitation."

To this poor ignorant person, there is a distinction between a "ritual killing", a brutal murder by a king or priest, and human sacrifice. I agree with the statement that "Human sacrifice is more or less defined here as the ritual killing of a person to appease or coerce a god figure."

2. "autosacrifice by drawing blood from the penis, tongue, or ears." Actually I see this as evidence of a corrupted form of Christianity, the doctrine of the Atonement itself, the spilt blood of the King for his people. Indeed, please tell us WHO performed this particular ritual in mesoamerica, and the symbolic meaning of his spilt blood.

3. Finally, I am finding some difficulty accepting the opinions of your "zero doubting" experts who conflate ritual murder with human sacrifice. I do undertand the difference between fact and opinion, even if that opinion is based on "zero doubt", as you say.

And autosacrifice is related to the Christian belief in the atonement, and would certainly be possible among the Nephite apostate religions.

[Nomad]

My dear star-eating dragon, since you're going to be working so hard to respond to the initial question, I think it is only fair that I go ahead and add a few additional questions that you might keep in mind as you diligently peruse your plethora of sources:

• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during Classic times?
  
• What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the games during pre-Classic times?
  
• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during Classic times?
  
• What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during pre-Classic times?
  
• What is the meaning of the glyphs surrounding the early-Classic (ca. 350 A.D.) panels at Yaxchilan depicting the King playing the ball game?
  
• Just for giggles, what can you tell us about the rules of the game concerning striking the ball?
  

I have several more questions for you, but that will suffice for the present.

I will anxiously await your responses.

[cdowis]

Ancestor worship, especially of powerful individuals, is indicated by archaeological evidence, and ritual human sacrifice was depicted in the art.

Can you specifically identify the dates and locations of this art. How was it dated? How does the location relate to the Nephite sphere of influence (where in mesoamerica are these art works located. Is this art depicting ritual murder or human sacrifice to a diety, or can we tell one way or another.

[James Banta]

Please indicate your sources for human sacrifice in the Grijalva river valley. What little archeology done in that region was done by the NWAF and showed no evidence of human sacrifice. No carved stellae, no sacrificial alters and no buried victims.

Please tell us the name of this Sun God and cultures that worshiped a "Sun God". According to Coe the Sun God was a late Maya diety.

Larry P

Here is one source, do you need more?

People in the far north of Mexico participated in the Southwest American societies are related in the paragraphs immediately above. Much farther south there was rapid growth in the Teotihuacan area and continued evidence of human sacrifice, common to all MesoAmerican societies. Skeletons wrapped in nets, ritually burned childrenâ??s remains and buried heads all testify to this

ANAWALT, PATRICIA R. "Understanding Aztec Human Sacrifice", Archaeology Vol. 35, No. 5: 38-45, Sept./Oct. 1982.

[beastie]

My dear star-eating dragon, since you're going to be working so hard to respond to the initial question, I think it is only fair that I go ahead and add a few additional questions that you might keep in mind as you diligently peruse your plethora of sources:

* What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during Classic times?

* What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the games during pre-Classic times?

* What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during Classic times?

* What do we know, from the textual evidence, about who played the game during pre-Classic times?

* What is the meaning of the glyphs surrounding the early-Classic (ca. 350 A.D.) panels at Yaxchilan depicting the King playing the ball game?

* Just for giggles, what can you tell us about the rules of the game concerning striking the ball?

I have several more questions for you, but that will suffice for the present.

I will anxiously await your responses.

I will not allow myself to be engaged in endless bunny trails. I have not asserted that we know the "rules and manner" of the game, other than that it was a sacred religious ritual that often ended in human sacrifice. I said I would provide more information regarding how scholars have arrived at this conclusion. But I will not follow you down pointless trails, particularly when you make no argument that these points have any relevancy regarding what I have actually asserted.

[beastie]

1. I missed the answer to my question -- is it your opinion that the Romans practiced human sacrifice in the gladitorial games. Do historians "universally agree" with "zero doubt" that the Romans practiced human sacrifice of gladiators, the Christians, of the leaders of the defeated tribes.

"captured kings died by sacrifice in the ballcourt." "More of a mytho-religious ritual than a sport, the game usually culminated in human sacrifice â?? normally decapitation."

To this poor ignorant person, there is a distinction between a "ritual killing", a brutal murder by a king or priest, and human sacrifice. I agree with the statement that "Human sacrifice is more or less defined here as the ritual killing of a person to appease or coerce a god figure."

2. "autosacrifice by drawing blood from the penis, tongue, or ears." Actually I see this as evidence of a corrupted form of Christianity, the doctrine of the Atonement itself, the spilt blood of the King for his people. Indeed, please tell us WHO performed this particular ritual in mesoamerica, and the symbolic meaning of his spilt blood.

3. Finally, I am finding some difficulty accepting the opinions of your "zero doubting" experts who conflate ritual murder with human sacrifice. I do undertand the difference between fact and opinion, even if that opinion is based on "zero doubt", as you say.

And autosacrifice is related to the Christian belief in the atonement, and would certainly be possible among the Nephite apostate religions.

Charles,

I can tell that you haven't done any reading about ancient Mesoamerica. I strongly encourage you to read my essay here, which goes into the detail you seem to need about these practices and beliefs:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/holylord.htm

I know you have some sort of bias against reading websites, but the information I'll share here to explain the basics of Mesoamerican sacrifice are already on my website, and I think it's unreasonable to be expected to repeat it.

[Nomad]

I will not allow myself to be engaged in endless bunny trails. I have not asserted that we know the "rules and manner" of the game, other than that it was a sacred religious ritual that often ended in human sacrifice. I said I would provide more information regarding how scholars have arrived at this conclusion. But I will not follow you down pointless trails, particularly when you make no argument that these points have any relevancy regarding what I have actually asserted.

You have made specific claims concerning the connection between the presence of a ball court and human sacrifice.

Lest you have missed my intent, I aim to make the argument that the presence of a ball court at any given site, in fact, does not equate to human sacrifice having been practiced at that site -- especially when we go back as far as early Classic or pre-Classic times.

In that context, my specific questions become hyper-relevant. You are the one that has made the bold assertion. I am issuing a formal call for references. If you would like to retract your claim instead, go ahead. I say you are either bluffing or ignorant of the pertinent scholarship, other than the cherry-picked citations you have presented so far, none of which establish your claims.

In short, I am suggesting that your claim is not backed by textual evidence, and that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the latest scholarship on the topic. If you think you can prove a connection between the ball court and human sacrifice at the early date in question, have at it.

I will anxiously await your reply ... or your continued retreat.

Edited to clarify one phrase ...

[wenglund]

a â?? artifacts in combination with sufficient data about available resources of the time period should be enough to ascertain this issue. Deanne Matheny did this in response to Sorenson.

The production of technology requires four kinds of resources:

1. Land--which includes raw material needed to produce the technology, like ore to make steel, or hard wood to carve spears, etc..

2. Capital--which includes the money and machinery or mechanism used to produce the technology, like furnaces to smelt the steel, or hard and sharp tools to carve hard wood, etc.

3. Human--people to man the production.

4. Intellectual--knowledge of how to produce the technology and the ambition to take the production from concept through to completed product.

Did Matheny cover all these resources in her response to Sorenson?

Anyway, getting back to the subject of my question (i.e. primitive natives living today), would we be able to use only artifacts from their villiages to ascertain, in a non-circular way, whether their non-adoption of advanced technology, pervasive within surrounding polity, may be due their lack of intellectual resources, if not capital and land resources?

b- artifacts in combination with sufficient data about climate and geography should suffice. Matheny also addressed this.

The "workability" of the technology goes well beyond climate and geography to include anthropological factors (like whether the primitive native cultures are relatively transient or stationary, whether they are a peacable or waring, whether they tend to be progressive or complacent, etc.) and economic factors (externalities, trade and specialization, etc.). For example, a primitive native who doesn't travel more than a mile or so from his hut, doesn't need the latest Hummer--it wouldn't "work" for him. If local tribes are peacable, an F-16 wouldn't work for him. And, if he gets his livelyhood from fishing the nearby lakes and foraging the nearby woods, a dental impression scanner with an automated crown milling machine wouldn't work for him either. Etc. Etc.

Again, getting back to the subject of my question (i.e. primitive natives living today), would we be able to use only artifacts from their villiage to ascertain, in a non-circular way, whether their non-adoption of advanced technology, pervasive throughout surrounding polity, may be due the anthropological and economic unworkabilities of the technology?

C & d would require additional information along with artifacts. It would be very helpful to have a 500 page document from the time period to provide more information.

Of course, the BoM does help us on this point:

I suppose that there are also volumns of books written about the technologically advanced polity surrounding the primitive native villiage I have been asking about. However, this doesn't address my question since there presumably aren''t volumns of books written about the primitive native villagers--at least not written by the villagers about the villagers. (Apparently, you have inadvertantly conflated the analogous objects of my question. The Nephites are analogous to todays advances polity, not the primitive native villiagers.) Here is my question again:

Do you think we can ascertain the answers to your's and my questions (particularly c & d) above by looking solely at artifacts that the primitive native villagers may leave behind?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

You have made specific claims concerning the connection between the presence of a ball court and human sacrifice.

Lest you have missed my intent, I aim to make the argument that the presence of a ball court at any given site, in fact, does not equate to human sacrifice having been practiced at that site -- especially when we go back as far as early Classic or pre-Classic times.

In that context, my specific questions become hyper-relevant. You are the one that has made the bold assertion. I am issuing a formal call for references. If you would like to retract your claim instead, go ahead. I say you are either bluffing or ignorant of the pertinent scholarship, other than the cherry-picked citations you have presented so far, none of which establish your claims.

In short, I am suggesting that your claim is not backed by textual evidence, and that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the latest scholarship on the topic. If you think you can prove a connection between the ball court and human sacrifice at the early date in question, have at it.

I will anxiously await your reply ... or your continued retreat.

This should prove to be quite entertaining. I'm still working on the ballgame post, since I'm having to hand-type numerous citations.

But, in the meantime, since you claim your questions are not only relevant, but "hyper-relevant" to my assertion that the ballgame is directly connected to human sacrifice, I'd like you to explain exactly how each question is "hyper-relevant" to that question. Perhaps you can persuade me that they're not diversions, because currently, that's exactly what they look like.

For example, take these two questions:

* What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the game during Classic times?

* What textual evidence, epigraphic or otherwise, exists to inform us of the rules and manner of the games during pre-Classic times?

Why do we have to know specific rules and manner of playing to ascertain whether or not sacrifice was often included in the ballgame?