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

[Brant Gardner]

If I understand Brantâ??s theory correctly, he is suggesting that Zarahemla was the center of a loose confederation of polities that worked together solely for the purpose of self-defense.

Not exactly. It was a confederation that was loosely held together because there is no evidence that it could compel participation, and much that it couldn't. Whatever else it could do, it had no ability to enforce participartion, and presumably many other aspects that we expect from governments. The other part of the argument is that the unusual conditions of mutual self-defense creates conditions where that evidence cannot be determined as normative for non-threatening situations.

It is a question of what kinds of inferences can be made from other situations. That is the problem of archaeology, and a problem with many of the comparisons you are making. Christopher A. Pool has an interesting chapter discussing the various ways that archaeologists have interpreted the Olmec, noting that the jury is still out on many important aspects.

Note some of his issues:

Before 1968, few questioned that the Olmecs had achieved a state level of organization. Rather, debate revolved around the specific organization of the political system and the extent of its domination. Heizer characterized the Olmecs as a "theocratic state" ruled by a small priesthood. Although it is widely accepted today that Olmec rulers wielded religious as well as a secular authority, most see the ultimate base of their power as resting in the control of material resources, and others question the ability to identify a theocracy with archaeological data alone. (Christopher A. Pool, Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 20)

In archaeology, the problem is particularly acute when the cross-cultural generalizations subsumed in the type definitions are used to extrapolate form the known traits to unknown traits. An example would be if one were to argue that because the Olmec possessed monumental art, and because monumental art is characteristic of early states, that Olmec rulers also wielded a monopoly on coercive force over their subjects. Pool, 25.

Particularly the latter is the issue I have been attempting to point out. You are often over-generalizing from the wrong areas and wrong time periods. Remember your argument that if the Nephites were influential (your definition of which typically came from other regions and later time periods) then they should have influenced religion. Your evidence that they didn't is that you don't see evidence for it. That is the very kind of over-generalization that Pool suggests we should not make. There is simply too much unknown when we are dealing with only archaeological data. Remember, the archaeologists are not even sure how to determine a theocracy from the artifacts. Your attempt to use archaeology to demonstrate a negative has logical problems long before you begin to cite worth sources.

[beastie]

Particularly the latter is the issue I have been attempting to point out. You are often over-generalizing from the wrong areas and wrong time periods.

Brant, this information about San Jose Mogote is from the exact same time period as the BoM. Moreover, it is right beside Chiapa de Corzo region.

I have a map of the LGT region on my website here (scroll down a bit):

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

Here is a map showing Chiapa de Corzo:

http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/mexi...a_de_corzo.html

And here is a map showing San Jose Mogote/Monte Alban (zoom out)

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox...vision&cd=1

I bet there's barely 200 miles between them, and yet you're going to insist that is the "wrong area"???

Moreover, archaeologists seem quite comfortable making inferences about what polities are capable of based on population density and political complexity. It's logistics - how large does a population have to be before craft specialization can be widespread? How large of an army can a certain population gather? Frankly, I think it is you who is over-generalizing from Pool's remarks. He's debating whether or not a theological/organizational idea can result in the state level complexity, versus control of materials. So while in other parts of the world, states may arisen largely due to control of materials, in Mesoamerica, states arose due to a particular theological idea. Yet you are taking these comments and generalizing it far beyond what the context provides - you're saying archaeologists cannot generalize at all based on population size and complexity.

In fact, on page 20 of the text you cite, Pool himself makes the type of generalization I'm making:

The idea of an Olmec empire seems implausible on several grounds. First, it is unlikely that populations in Olman were large enough to provide an army of sufficient size to control such an extensive territory, even if the empire were organized in a “hegemonic” fashion like that of the Aztecs to control tribute flows rather than territory.

See? Archaeologists feel perfectly comfortable making generalizations about what populations likely could or could not do based on their population density and social complexity. That is exactly what I am doing as well.

At any rate, for purposes of comparison, can you refer us to a chiefdom that served as a regional capital (for the purposes of self protection) for a region that encompassed 423,970 square kilometers?

Brant, why is it that you think it's worthwhile to respond to this, and yet you refuse to respond to the scriptures I've shared several times that clearly specify that the Nephites - before the dissolution of their government - were governed by a strict set of laws enforced by a hierarchy?

(BTW, speaking of the speculation on whether or not San Lorenzo was a state or complex chiefdom, this is yet another example of the pattern apologists have of suggesting the most powerful polites in Mesoamerica as candidates for the BoM, and then simultaneously insisting the BoM polities were minor and insignificant, not the type of polities that could influence Mesoamerican evolution. Apologists are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.)

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, why is it that you think it's worthwhile to respond to this, and yet you refuse to respond to the scriptures I've shared several times that clearly specify that the Nephites - before the dissolution of their government - were governed by a strict set of laws enforced by a hierarchy?

This wasn't a "response." It was providing one of the reasons that we have difficulty communicating. We are coming from very different perspectives. The point was that there are reasons why archaeologists provide site-specific analyses that may or may not be applicable to other areas. Since all such analyses are built upon an analysis of artifacts, and (in the case of Preclassic Mesoamerica) not upon texts, there is always the problem of over-extending an interpretation of artifacts where a text would give us a different perspective.

As for the nature of generalizations, it is certainly true that archaeologists generalize, but you have to understand the data upon which they are generalizing and the nature of the conclusions. Note Pool's use of "control," which is the very issue that we have discussed and not agreed upon. That will continue to be the crux of the difference between the ways we interpret Nephite politics. I see no indication that during non-crisis times (when they are not threatened by an outside army) that there is any means of control over the members of the loose hegemony. You see indications of law as suppositions of control. They are two different things (and the reason Pool is giving his caution).

As for the particular scriptures, you should know by now that we are reading them from very different perspectives. I could explain mine, but that wouldn't alter your perspective. Based on previous discussions of the scriptures, we end up continuing to read them differently. Since I don't see any difference here, there is no reason to continue that part of the dance.

[beastie]

As for the nature of generalizations, it is certainly true that archaeologists generalize, but you have to understand the data upon which they are generalizing and the nature of the conclusions. Note Pool's use of "control," which is the very issue that we have discussed and not agreed upon. That will continue to be the crux of the difference between the ways we interpret Nephite politics. I see no indication that during non-crisis times (when they are not threatened by an outside army) that there is any means of control over the members of the loose hegemony. You see indications of law as suppositions of control. They are two different things (and the reason Pool is giving his caution).

I guess we have a different definition of "response."

Right now we are determining influence, not control. I gave a specific example that fit the parameters you set – a polity that served as a regional capital for purposes of self-defense. At the time period of San Jose Mogote, it was not directly controlling the other polities in the “confederation”. It was a perfect example – right time period, and within a 200 mile range. San Jose Mogote was evolving into the extremely powerful state of Monte Alban - for a region of 1,500 square kilometers. Do you have an example of a chiefdom that served as such a regional capital for a region of 423,970 square kilometers?

As for the particular scriptures, you should know by now that we are reading them from very different perspectives. I could explain mine, but that wouldn't alter your perspective. Based on previous discussions of the scriptures, we end up continuing to read them differently. Since I don't see any difference here, there is no reason to continue that part of the dance.

Then explain your interpretation for the sake of readers who may genuinely be confused by your silence. Their confusion would be understandable given the information I shared about how archaeologists define “state” earlier on this thread:

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.

[The state]: A special function institution of some stratified societies that legitimizes stratification through governing bodies, laws, and police structures to maintain internal order and control class conflict.

I don’t respond to you in the hopes of changing your mind, because we’ve discussed this long enough to know better, but for the sake of other folks who are trying to sort through these issues themselves. Perhaps readers who read how the Nephite polity could put individuals to death when they followed a specific legal route are confused as to how this does not constitute the power of the ruler being backed by coercive law. I certainly find that confusing, and I’m guessing my confusion is not abnormal.

Remember your argument that if the Nephites were influential (your definition of which typically came from other regions and later time periods) then they should have influenced religion. Your evidence that they didn't is that you don't see evidence for it.

I assert that this should be the case because it was the case in ancient Mesoamerica. The most powerful polities were the ones who led the way and influenced the other polities. You have yet to provide a logical reason why that would suddenly not be the case if the religion in question were Judeo-Christian instead of Holy Lordism.

The evidence we would "see" would not simply be in iconography - it would be in the evolution of the entire religious worldview, which is amply attested to in text in later periods. IOW, instead of Holy Lordism "stamping" the later religious worldview, it would have been Judeo-Christianity.

[Brant Gardner]

I assert that this should be the case because it was the case in ancient Mesoamerica. The most powerful polities were the ones who led the way and influenced the other polities. You have yet to provide a logical reason why that would suddenly not be the case if the religion in question were Judeo-Christian instead of Holy Lordism.

This statement is ample evidence of the reason we are at a dead end. You have stated, multiple times, that "The most powerful polities were the ones who led the way and influenced the other polities." There are huge problems with both the statement and the application of the statement to Book of Mormon research.

1) The statement is made as though it were normative. The problem, of course, is that the evidence is create backwards from the hypothesis. The polity is considered influential because there is evidence of widespread influence. You have taken a piece of information constructed from data to conclusion, and reversed it. As Pool pointed out, that is over-generalizing. The best we can say is that when a polity has been sufficiently influential that it altered pottery styles (or other material means) that we can therefore tell that it was likely to have been influential in other areas. Unfortunately, that doesn't equate in the reverse, that any polity that was sufficient to adhere more than one city was, of necessity, of sufficient power to create an influential style. We simply don't have the data to make that conclusion.

2) The Book of Mormon, if you read the way cultural pressures are designated in the text, is specifically arguing against having the kind of influence you think it should have had. In that, you agree with the text--the Zarahemla confederacy wasn't as powerful as other hegemonies and therefore unlikely to have generated the kind of cultural pressures that we see in other areas. The text confirms that. The cultural pressures were from the outside in. As with ancient Israel, we see the real powerful influences in what the prophets decry, not in what they claim as the ideal.

The evidence we would "see" would not simply be in iconography - it would be in the evolution of the entire religious worldview, which is amply attested to in text in later periods. IOW, instead of Holy Lordism "stamping" the later religious worldview, it would have been Judeo-Christianity.

This hypothesis suffers from similar issues as above.

1) "Holy Lordism" was a regional phenomenon, encompassing a vast area that was unrelated to particular polity dominance. This was a movement that was supra-city, supra-hegemony. How it traces out is, certainly, still under investigation. The point of relevance here, however, is that is is not connected to the issue of political power that you have been suggesting. It is much larger than that. The conception of the Holy Lord was in both Tikal and Calakmul, and Cerros (and, and, and,....). The pressures for creating this type of governmental system, replete with the social hierarchies attached to it, were becoming part of the regional Mesoamericanization occurring in the Preclassic.

2) That developmental pressure is specifically noted in the Book of Mormon. Early (as early as Jacob) it is seen in the conflict between a Nephite egalitarianism and the pressure for greater social hierarchies. It is much more explicit when we see the pressure to return to a kingship after the Nephite rejection of a king and adoption of a non-king political structure (the nature of the judge system indicates that there were still significant links to some of the concepts behind kinship, while rejecting the hierarchical nature of the Holy Lord system).

3) The entire argument of the Nephite political system is a retention of the "old" more egalitarian way and a rejection of the pressures to greater social stratification. Ergo, the text specifically denies that it should provide evidence of the type you are suggesting. It is contrary to the nature of the ethos behind the system. The text also documents, rather clearly, that the "old" concepts were constantly under ideological and sociological attack from the larger and more prevalent system (easily defined as the Holy Lord style kingship).

So where are we?

In relation to polities: You are reading certain texts in the Book of Mormon and suggesting that they must indicate a particular kind of political system that you see in other areas. Since that the Book of Mormon wasn't has archaeologically powerful as the sites to which you are comparing it, you are declaring a problem contra archaeology. That argument has methodological problems in the nature of the comparisons between sites (the point of bringing up Pool). The argument from the text requires that you read your hypothesis in to the text and ignore the contrary evidence from the text. When all of those evidentiary issues combine to create an argument based upon the absence of evidence, you don't have much of a compelling case.

In relation to religious influence: You have taken a concept that was pan-Mesoamerican and suggested that it must be related to specific polity influence. That hypothesis is rather easily denied by the widespread nature of similar ideas. They clearly cross polities, languages, and cultures. The next problem is that you hypothesize an anachronistic lack of Judeo-Christian influence. That hypothesis has multiple problems. The most obvious is that you have no way to define the text case, because you do not know, and cannot know (at least at present) what a Mesoamericanized Judeo-Christian religion would look like (remember that all iconographic markers we are familiar with come after the time of the separation into the New World and hence have no reason to exist). The second problem is that the text tells us that the nature of the Nephite nation was such that we should not expect the kind of influence you are suggesting. That comes in the conflicts between the egalitarian nature and the social stratification. So this argument has significant issues.

To date, your response to the methodological and logical issues behind your hypotheses has been to continue to site either scripture or Mesoamerican authorities. Both of those types of evidence can be used to build your case, but they are not a case in and of themselves. They have to be constructed into a reasonable argument. That means that you have to deal with the problem of method and application of data.

I hope that in repeating this in yet a different way that I have communicated the issue a little better. Citing scripture or authorities won't get us anywhere until we deal with the issues of how the scriptures and authorities are being used/should be used.

[beastie]

Iâ??m going to respond in parts:

1) The statement is made as though it were normative. The problem, of course, is that the evidence is create backwards from the hypothesis. The polity is considered influential because there is evidence of widespread influence. You have taken a piece of information constructed from data to conclusion, and reversed it. As Pool pointed out, that is over-generalizing. The best we can say is that when a polity has been sufficiently influential that it altered pottery styles (or other material means) that we can therefore tell that it was likely to have been influential in other areas. Unfortunately, that doesn't equate in the reverse, that any polity that was sufficient to adhere more than one city was, of necessity, of sufficient power to create an influential style. We simply don't have the data to make that conclusion.

First, I object to your statement â??the best we can say is that when a polity has been sufficiently influential that it altered pottery styles (or other material means) that we can therefore tell that it was likely to have been influential in other areas.â? This statement completely ignores the most crucial point in Mesoamerican history â?? that what changed the course of Mesoamerican history was an idea versus a technology or material good. This is why, when you continue to focus on iconography, I think youâ??re missing the mark. We know what the idea was that spread throughout Mesoamerica, and that idea was propagated from the most powerful polities.

Now, your point is valid that this is working backwards. I do not believe itâ??s over-generalizing when that is what Mesoamerican history consistently presents. However, you can make your point here by pointing to a polity in Mesoamerica that was known to be powerful, in terms of social complexity and political organization, and yet did not have any impact on the polities around it.

2) The Book of Mormon, if you read the way cultural pressures are designated in the text, is specifically arguing against having the kind of influence you think it should have had. In that, you agree with the text--the Zarahemla confederacy wasn't as powerful as other hegemonies and therefore unlikely to have generated the kind of cultural pressures that we see in other areas. The text confirms that. The cultural pressures were from the outside in. As with ancient Israel, we see the real powerful influences in what the prophets decry, not in what they claim as the ideal.

I donâ??t agree with your assertion that the text states that the Zarahemla confederacy wasnâ??t as powerful as other hegemonies. For all the reasons Iâ??ve repeatedly stated on this thread, the Zarahemla confederacy would have been even more powerful than other hegemonies. That they chose to not normally use force was not an indicator of lack of ability â?? see all the times they vanquished the Lamanites â?? but rather due to an ideological choice.

But, again, you can make your point here by answering my earlier question: can you name a simple chiefdom that was the regional capital (for reasons of defense) of a region that encompassed 423,970 square kilometers?

[Brant Gardner]

First, I object to your statement â??the best we can say is that when a polity has been sufficiently influential that it altered pottery styles (or other material means) that we can therefore tell that it was likely to have been influential in other areas.â? This statement completely ignores the most crucial point in Mesoamerican history â?? that what changed the course of Mesoamerican history was an idea versus a technology or material good. This is why, when you continue to focus on iconography, I think youâ??re missing the mark. We know what the idea was that spread throughout Mesoamerica, and that idea was propagated from the most powerful polities.

And I strenuously object that ideas were only spread through the most powerful polities. There are so many traits held in common that cross cultural lines that this cannot be correct. Which city was behind the corn/beans/squash trilogy? Which city promulgated the ways to drink cacao? Which city fostered the idea of a feathered serpent?

There are so many ideas that were transmitted in ways other than conquest or through the influence of specific cities that this argument simply has no solid foundation. You can trace pottery styles, you cannot easily trace ideas archeologically.

However, you can make your point here by pointing to a polity in Mesoamerica that was known to be powerful, in terms of social complexity and political organization, and yet did not have any impact on the polities around it.

And that is where the logical problem comes in. Since the only evidence you are accepting for "influence" is the distribution of traceable material goods, then you set up a problem that can have only one solution, even when the polity was "influential" in some other way. You define the problem in such a way that your definition of evidence is determined by a particular material remain.

The problem with that hypothesis is that you cannot trace such information. Remember Pool indicating that we can't tell if a polity was a theocracy from archaeological evidence. We could, if we had a text. That is the problem. Texts tell us more than the dirt does, in some cases. In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have a text telling us that there was a different definition of influence. Nevertheless, you are insisting that the only definition is the one that comes from a defined archaeology where that complex defines the nature of the polity's influence.

As I said, you can trace from the evidence to the hypothesis (dirt to argument), but you cannot retrace that path and declare the hypothesis to be normative and that any "influential" polity must produce that particular type of evidence. That reverse path doesn't work.

I donâ??t agree with your assertion that the text states that the Zarahemla confederacy wasnâ??t as powerful as other hegemonies. For all the reasons Iâ??ve repeatedly stated on this thread, the Zarahemla confederacy would have been even more powerful than other hegemonies.

Yes, I know. You have noted, I expect, that I have consistently disagreed with you on this. As for being more powerful than other hegemonies, a very clear contrary example is the very instance of war that you use as your best case. The Nephites defend a homefront. The Lamanites are massing very large armies away from their home. That tells you immediately that the Lamanite political structure was more powerful (in terms of mounting both the army and the logistics) that the Nephites. So, from the only textual comparison we have, the text tells us that the Nephites were not as powerful as the Lamanites with whom they contended.

That they chose to not normally use force was not an indicator of lack of ability â?? see all the times they vanquished the Lamanites â?? but rather due to an ideological choice.

And we return to the problem of banding together to prevent mutual destruction. You continue to avoid the implication of the cooperation between Sparta and Athens. They cooperated in mutual defense, but otherwise were antagonistic. That tells you that history is against your thesis that military cooperation/control is equal to political control.

So, we are left with other occasions where there is an indication of some form of over-governorship. It is precisely in those cases that we can analyze how powerful Zarahemla was. The answer is, there is no indication of any ability/attempt of control over a different polity. The other cities could voluntarily submit to the laws/higher judges. However, there is no textual indication that should they not submit, that there was any penalty. That tells us that there wasn't much power in Zarahemla. You can only determine power when you see it being exercised. When there are clear occasions where it should be exercised and it isn't, that tells you something about the nature of the power.

How powerful is a Mesoamerican city if it has a tributary city that decides to stop giving tribute? There are two responses, one to compel the tribute, and the other is to ask nicely. Which of the two approaches shows political power?

But, again, you can make your point here by answering my earlier question: can you name a simple chiefdom that was the regional capital (for reasons of defense) of a region that encompassed 423,970 square kilometers?

Can you provide the evidence that one would look for that would define that kind of regional capital in such a way that every such city would be included and not missed -- based on material remains alone? You are repeating the fallacy of reversing evidence. If you have evidence you can make a hypothesis about the nature of that particular capital. You cannot, however, readily assume that all cities exercising cooperative defense would produce the same material evidence (Pool's issue, again).

[beastie]

1) "Holy Lordism" was a regional phenomenon, encompassing a vast area that was unrelated to particular polity dominance. This was a movement that was supra-city, supra-hegemony. How it traces out is, certainly, still under investigation. The point of relevance here, however, is that is is not connected to the issue of political power that you have been suggesting. It is much larger than that. The conception of the Holy Lord was in both Tikal and Calakmul, and Cerros (and, and, and,....). The pressures for creating this type of governmental system, replete with the social hierarchies attached to it, were becoming part of the regional Mesoamericanization occurring in the Preclassic.

Since this is exactly what Iâ??ve been arguing, I fail to see your point. My point is that if some of the most powerful polities in Mesoamerica had been Judeo-Christian instead of Holy Lordian, then that is what we would see as a regional phenomenon. The point Iâ??ve been trying to make, over and over, is that Holy Lordism was a direct response to the increasing social stratification in the region, and the reason why the most powerful polities led the way was due to the fact that they were the first ones to experience the social stress resultant of increasing social stratification. The BoM presents a polity that is very quickly facing this problem, which would make it notable already in Mesoamerica, and it presents its own solution to that problem â?? Judeo-Christianity. They would have been among the first experiencing that social stress, and among the first to offer the solution. Every time an apologist chooses a polity such as Kaminaljuyu, or for the Jaredites, San Lorenzo, as a BoM candidate, they are making my point for me. There is a reason apologists consistently choose from the most powerful Mesoamerican polities, and that reason is the social complexity described in the BoM.

2) That developmental pressure is specifically noted in the Book of Mormon. Early (as early as Jacob) it is seen in the conflict between a Nephite egalitarianism and the pressure for greater social hierarchies. It is much more explicit when we see the pressure to return to a kingship after the Nephite rejection of a king and adoption of a non-king political structure (the nature of the judge system indicates that there were still significant links to some of the concepts behind kinship, while rejecting the hierarchical nature of the Holy Lord system).

This is exactly my point!! Yes, very early in the BoM story we see the pressure of increasing social stratification. This occurred so early that this alone would tag it as a precociously developed polity for that specific time period in Mesoamerica. Youâ??re really making my point for me. It appears to me that youâ??re simply asserting â??but they fought against Holy Lordismâ? as if that refutes my point. My point is that if these polities existed, they would have been among the most powerful in Mesoamerica and the very fact that they fought against Holy Lordism would have had an impact on Mesoamerica, even aside from their own â??solutionâ? â?? Judeo-Christianity.

3) The entire argument of the Nephite political system is a retention of the "old" more egalitarian way and a rejection of the pressures to greater social stratification. Ergo, the text specifically denies that it should provide evidence of the type you are suggesting. It is contrary to the nature of the ethos behind the system. The text also documents, rather clearly, that the "old" concepts were constantly under ideological and sociological attack from the larger and more prevalent system (easily defined as the Holy Lord style kingship).

Yes, the Nephite polity had an alternate solution, and Holy Lordism was against their ethos. If a powerful, successful polity such as described in the BoM had a successful alternative (successful in terms of helping the polity thrive) to Holy Lord, then we would see that influence along with the Holy Lord influence.

The only refutation you have is the argument that the Nephites were really a minor, insignificant polity, because so far, your statements lend support to my argument. So you really need to demonstrate how the Nephite polity, as described in the BoM, could have possibly been a minor, insignificant polity for the time period.

In relation to polities: You are reading certain texts in the Book of Mormon and suggesting that they must indicate a particular kind of political system that you see in other areas. Since that the Book of Mormon wasn't has archaeologically powerful as the sites to which you are comparing it, you are declaring a problem contra archaeology. That argument has methodological problems in the nature of the comparisons between sites (the point of bringing up Pool). The argument from the text requires that you read your hypothesis in to the text and ignore the contrary evidence from the text. When all of those evidentiary issues combine to create an argument based upon the absence of evidence, you don't have much of a compelling case.

The only â??contrary evidenceâ? from the text is that the Nephites opposed Holy Lordism and proposed their own alternative â?? Judeo-Christianity. This does not constitute contrary evidence to my actual proposal â?? which is that their alternate solution would have influenced other polities in the first place.

In relation to religious influence: You have taken a concept that was pan-Mesoamerican and suggested that it must be related to specific polity influence. That hypothesis is rather easily denied by the widespread nature of similar ideas.

Holy Lordism was a direct response to increasing social stratification. The first polities to experience the social stress due to increasing social stratification were the precociously developed polities for that time period, and this was the solution they offered. How does the widespread nature of similar ideas refute that point?

They clearly cross polities, languages, and cultures.

Iâ??m talking specifically about the Holy Lord worldview. Yes, that idea is pan-Mesoamerican. How does this refute my point?

The next problem is that you hypothesize an anachronistic lack of Judeo-Christian influence. That hypothesis has multiple problems. The most obvious is that you have no way to define the text case, because you do not know, and cannot know (at least at present) what a Mesoamericanized Judeo-Christian religion would look like (remember that all iconographic markers we are familiar with come after the time of the separation into the New World and hence have no reason to exist). The second problem is that the text tells us that the nature of the Nephite nation was such that we should not expect the kind of influence you are suggesting. That comes in the conflicts between the egalitarian nature and the social stratification. So this argument has significant issues.

You consistently ignore a point I made long ago â?? iconography is far from the only way that we know about Holy Lordism, it just helps us detect its presence earlier. We know about Holy Lordism because the Mesoamerican worldview evolved from that basis, and the later texts that were written reflect that worldview. All we have to do is substitute â??Judeo-Christianityâ? for Holy Lordism. I tried to demonstrate his several posts ago:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities developed the idea of Holy Lordism to effectively deal with that social strain -----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Holy Lordism ----> Holy Lordism was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

Brantâ??s argument seems to be that â?? for some unexplained reason â?? this trajectory would not also have held true with Judeo-Christianity. Letâ??s just take the same trajectory and insert Judeo-Christianity instead of Holy Lordism:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities embraced the idea of Judeo-Christianity to effectively deal with that social strain ----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Judeo-Christianity ----> Judeo-Christianity was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

I think one way we can resolve this particular argument is by your answering this question:

If I were correct that the Nephite polity as described in the BM would actually be among the most powerful, if not the most powerful polity in the region, then would the rest of my argument be logically sound? Ie, that we would see their influence in the evolution of the Mesoamerican worldview just as we see the influence of Holy Lordism.

I fully understand you do not believe I am correct in my assertion about the power of the Nephite polity, but answering this question as if I were correct on that point will help isolate the real disagreement. That would be helpful when my perception of what you post to refute my argument actually seems to support my argument.

[Anijen]

beastie your Socratic method of breaking down Brant's arguments are repeated ad nauseum and I feel I am reading the same over and over. Brant's theory that the polities and their controls were very much like Athens and Sparta are backed by the texts I have read so far. Schele even suggests in Forest of Kings on page 57 she is saying that on the first glance that it appears like a monarchy but then she says this; a closer parallel would be the city states of classical Greece and are interdependent. I posted this before and you ignored it.

[beastie]

beastie your Socratic method of breaking down Brant's arguments are repeated ad nauseum and I feel I am reading the same over and over. Brant's theory that the polities and their controls were very much like Athens and Sparta are backed by the texts I have read so far. Schele even suggests in Forest of Kings on page 57 she is saying that on the first glance that it appears like a monarchy but then she says this; a closer parallel would be the city states of classical Greece and are interdependent. I posted this before and you ignored it.

You, like Brant, are ignoring the clear example of San Jose Mogote/Monte Alban that I already offered to address this point.

It is frustrating to be told I'm ignoring a point after I wrote an entire post dealing with it.

San Jose Mogote was the chiefdom that functioned as Brant suggests for the Nephite polity - it was a regional capital for the purpose of self defense of the various polities that joined together under its direction. This is why I compared the region contained in the San Jose Mogote region to the region in the BoM.

[Brant Gardner]

My point is that if these polities existed, they would have been among the most powerful in Mesoamerica and the very fact that they fought against Holy Lordism would have had an impact on Mesoamerica, even aside from their own â??solutionâ? â?? Judeo-Christianity.

Apparently there is no way we will communicate on this issue. If you think that I was making your point for you, then we are farther apart than I thought.

I have mentioned Cerros before and it is appropriate again. They were egalitarian, attempted the "new" Holy Lord stuff, and then abandoned it. They managed to do that without being subject to a known city or subjecting any known cities.

The refusal to participate is part of the process. Defining that resistance as something that ought to have been a visible trend is a fascinating leap of logic.

[beastie]

And I strenuously object that ideas were only spread through the most powerful polities.

Well, I object to that as well. Fortunately, I didnâ??t say or imply such a thing.

There are so many traits held in common that cross cultural lines that this cannot be correct. Which city was behind the corn/beans/squash trilogy? Which city promulgated the ways to drink cacao? Which city fostered the idea of a feathered serpent?

I thought the context of our discussion made clear that I am talking about one idea in particular â?? the idea that changed Mesoamerica: Holy Lord. I shared this quote on my website to emphasize this point:

In the book A Forest of Kings, Schele and Freidel explain the fundamental importance of the Holy Lord:

â??If we judge the Maya only by our own definition of progress, they had few technological wonders. By our standards, they were a Stone Age people lacking even such rudimentary developments as the uses of metal and the domestication of beasts of burden. Yet few people today would deny that they possessed a high civilization and a complex social order. If the Maya did not invent an advanced scientific technology that harnessed natural energy, what then did they invent? The answer to this question is simple: They invented ideas that harvested social energy. The genius of the Maya was expressed through the creation of new visions of power. They invented political symbols that transformed and coordinated such age-old institutions as the extended family, the village, the shaman, and the patriarch into the stuff of civilized life.â? (page 97)

â??At the time when the institution of kingship was invented, the Maya were faced with cultural tensions so great they threatened to tear their society apart. Outside forces were upsetting the heretofore carefully maintained system of social egalitarianism. Trade, both between Maya communities and between the Maya and their Mesaoamerican neighbors, such as the Mije-speaking people of the Pacific Coast, the post-Olmec people of the Gulf Coast, the Zapotecs of the Valley of Oaxaca, and the Teotihuacanos of the central valley of Mexico, was generating a flow of wealth that was unequally distributed among the people. In a culture which regarded the accumulation of wealth as an aberration, this turn of events created unease and social strife. At the same time, the development of raised-field agriculture and extensive water-management systems created prosperity in regions which had the means to organize the labor pool necessary to maintain these systems. As contacts with trading partners already organized into kingdoms intensified, ideas of rank and privilege further exacerbated the differences in wealth and status that had grown with the success of these commercial and agricultural enterprises. A new leadership appeared within many Maya communities â?? one that was hierarchical in its nature.

We know that the problem the Maya were trying to resolve was one of social inequality because that is precisely the state of affairs that the institution of ahau defines as legitimate, necessary, and intrinsic to the order of the cosmos. The development of a high civilization always creates problems of social inequality, but such differences between people need not be manifested negatively. For the Maya, the kingship became the primary symbol and rationale for the noble class, the ahauob. Kingship addressed the problem of inequality, not by destroying or denying it, but by embedding the contradictory nature of privilege into the very fabric of life itself. The rituals of the ahauob declared that the magical person of the king was pivot and pinnacle of a pyramid of people, the summit of a ranking of families that extended out to incorporate everyone in the kingdom â?? from highest to lowest. His person was the conduit of the sacred, the path of communication to the Otherworld, the means of contacting the dead, and indeed of surviving death itself. He was the clarifier of the mysteries of everyday life, of planting and harvesting, of illness and health. He wielded his knowledge and influence to create advantageous trade agreements for his people. He could read in the heavens the signs which told him when to war and when to maintain the peace. The farmer, the stonemason, and the craftsperson might have to pay tribute to the king, but the king compensated them for their service by giving them a richer, more enjoyable, more cohesive existence. The people reaped the spiritual benefits of the kingâ??s intercession with the supernatural world and shared in the material wealth his successful performance brought to the community.â? (page 111)

Brant

And that is where the logical problem comes in. Since the only evidence you are accepting for "influence" is the distribution of traceable material goods, then you set up a problem that can have only one solution, even when the polity was "influential" in some other way. You define the problem in such a way that your definition of evidence is determined by a particular material remain.

No, the only evidence you are accepting for â??influenceâ? is the distribution of traceable material goods. I am accepting â??influenceâ? by noting that the influence of Holy Lord can easily be seen in later texts.

Yes, I know. You have noted, I expect, that I have consistently disagreed with you on this. As for being more powerful than other hegemonies, a very clear contrary example is the very instance of war that you use as your best case. The Nephites defend a homefront. The Lamanites are massing very large armies away from their home. That tells you immediately that the Lamanite political structure was more powerful (in terms of mounting both the army and the logistics) that the Nephites. So, from the only textual comparison we have, the text tells us that the Nephites were not as powerful as the Lamanites with whom they contended.

I was talking about real polities in Mesoamerica, not the Lamanite polity in the BoM. Arguing that the Lamanite polity was incredibly powerful, powerful enough to mass a large army away from home and invade and take over conquered polities, then you have a second significant problem: which polity in the time period was capable of that?

And we return to the problem of banding together to prevent mutual destruction. You continue to avoid the implication of the cooperation between Sparta and Athens. They cooperated in mutual defense, but otherwise were antagonistic. That tells you that history is against your thesis that military cooperation/control is equal to political control.

I most certainly have not avoided the implication of the cooperation between Sparta and Athens. I quite deliberately chose San Jose Mogote/Monte Alban as an example that met your specifications of otherwise disparate polities joining together under one regional capital for the sole purpose of self defense.

So, we are left with other occasions where there is an indication of some form of over-governorship. It is precisely in those cases that we can analyze how powerful Zarahemla was. The answer is, there is no indication of any ability/attempt of control over a different polity. The other cities could voluntarily submit to the laws/higher judges. However, there is no textual indication that should they not submit, that there was any penalty. That tells us that there wasn't much power in Zarahemla. You can only determine power when you see it being exercised. When there are clear occasions where it should be exercised and it isn't, that tells you something about the nature of the power.

Or it tells us something about the ideology of the group. The US certainly has the power to force other countries to bend to our will, but that is against our ideology, except when provoked.

IMO, you never adequately dealt with cdowisâ?? post 232:

I have alot of respect for your opinions, so perhaps you can tell us about Al chapter 51:15-21. I really do not understand your statement here. Regardless of WHY they did not fight, the fact remains that they were compelled to fight or be destroyed, by the authority of the governor. This is not an indication of Athens vs Sparta. I think your idea is interesting, but this incident smashed your hypothesis to smithereens. There was a vote (call it whatever you want), the kingmen lost, and they then refused to fight against the Lamanite threat -- they were PASSIVE, not actively going against the Nephite army. It was their passivism that was punished by death, or to actively take up arms in defense of their country. And this included multiple cities.

Sorry, but the Greek city state model just does not fit here. But, as I said, it was interesting.

Can you provide the evidence that one would look for that would define that kind of regional capital in such a way that every such city would be included and not missed -- based on material remains alone? You are repeating the fallacy of reversing evidence. If you have evidence you can make a hypothesis about the nature of that particular capital. You cannot, however, readily assume that all cities exercising cooperative defense would produce the same material evidence (Pool's issue, again).

Look for the same sort of evidence that created the case for San Jose Mogote/Monte Alban.

[beastie]

The refusal to participate is part of the process. Defining that resistance as something that ought to have been a visible trend is a fascinating leap of logic.

At this point, what's fascinating to me is what you choose to ignore. It's not that the resistance alone would have been a visible trend, but the alternative the Nephites offered, and used quite successfully for hundreds of years - Judeo-Christianity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Judeo-Christianity.

Which should be exactly what our current understanding of Judeo-Christianity is. It's pretty clear that we haven't found any Jesus nightlights, CTR rings, or yarmulkes in the mesoamerican ruins. Case closed.

[beastie]

Which should be exactly what our current understanding of Judeo-Christianity is. It's pretty clear that we haven't found any Jesus nightlights, CTR rings, or yarmulkes in the mesoamerican ruins. Case closed.

So now you're arguing you wouldn't even be able to recognize Judeo-Christianity in text?

[Anijen]

So now you're arguing you wouldn't even be able to recognize Judeo-Christianity in text?

Well considering the huge amount of Hebraisms in the BoM that's not a strong argument. Before you reply I am sure you were preferencing the Mesoamercan literature well as LOAP said there wont be any and that is one of Brant's points he doesn't emphasise finding Judeo-Christianity in Mesoamerica but invert that, he finds much of Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Beastie may I suggest a few more books for your vast mesoamerican library and that would be Brant's six volume commentary on the BoM. Perhaps after digesting that you might be able to better see his perspective. Just a thought. I see you trying to push a thought that just is not getting no where so try a different view. It couldn't hurt.

Anijen

[beastie]

Well considering the huge amount of Hebraisms in the BoM that's not a strong argument. Before you reply I am sure you were preferencing the Mesoamercan literature well as LOAP said there wont be any and that is one of Brant's points he doesn't emphasise finding Judeo-Christianity in Mesoamerica but invert that, he finds much of Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Beastie may I suggest a few more books for your vast mesoamerican library and that would be Brant's six volume commentary on the BoM. Perhaps after digesting that you might be able to better see his perspective. Just a thought. I see you trying to push a thought that just is not getting no where so try a different view. It couldn't hurt.

I can't afford Brant's books, otherwise I would buy them. They're quite expensive. I am pretty familiar with Brant's arguments, however, from discussing these issues with him over the years.

I can see my point about text was lost. I'm just going to have to repeat something:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities developed the idea of Holy Lordism to effectively deal with that social strain -----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Holy Lordism ----> Holy Lordism was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

Brant’s argument seems to be that – for some unexplained reason – this trajectory would not also have held true with Judeo-Christianity. Let’s just take the same trajectory and insert Judeo-Christianity instead of Holy Lordism:

Some polities experience social strain earlier than others ----> those same polities embraced the idea of Judeo-Christianity to effectively deal with that social strain ----> other polities that developed later were heavily influenced by the precocious polities and also embraced Judeo-Christianity ----> Judeo-Christianity was persistent and pervasive and was recorded in later time periods in some detail.

We know the details we do about Holy Lordism because of the texts that were written at a later date. Those texts helped us identify the same trends in earlier time periods. So if the influential religion had been Judeo-Christianity instead of Holy Lordism, we would be able to find out the details of that in later texts as well. We could then use that information to help us recognize the same trends of thought in earlier time periods.

[poulsenll]

I can't afford Brant's books, otherwise I would buy them. They're quite expensive. I am pretty familiar with Brant's arguments, however, from discussing these issues with him over the years.

Poor excuse. His commentary in a prlininary form, some of which he modified in the published version, is found at

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm

and has been there for some time.

You might also try reading the Popul Vuh, if you have not already done so. It gives another view of a preconquest culture.

Larry P

[beastie]

Poor excuse. His commentary in a prlininary form, some of which he modified in the published version, is found at

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm

and has been there for some time.

You might also try reading the Popul Vuh, if you have not already done so. It gives another view of a preconquest culture.

Apparently I'm more familiar with his website than you are. He's taken it down. Notice the links don't work? BTW, I quoted from his former website earlier on this thread, I'm quite familiar with it.

And yes, I've already read the Popol Vuh.

So what's your take on the scriptures I've been trying to get Brant to comment on? (and no, his book doesn't offer any clarification there, I've already checked)

Do those scriptures indicate that before the dissolution of the Nephite government they were governed by a strict set of laws that were enforced by a hierarchy?

[poulsenll]

Apparently I'm more familiar with his website than you are. He's taken it down. Notice the links don't work? BTW, I quoted from his former website earlier on this thread, I'm quite familiar with it.

And yes, I've already read the Popol Vuh.

So what's your take on the scriptures I've been trying to get Brant to comment on? (and no, his book doesn't offer any clarification there, I've already checked)

Do those scriptures indicate that before the dissolution of the Nephite government they were governed by a strict set of laws that were enforced by a hierarchy?

Sorry about that. The link I posted still worked but I had not tested any of the sublinks since I have the books.

In answer to your question, I agree with Brant that there was no such thing as a Nephite government with power to enforce civil law.

Larry P

[Hashbaz]

Beastie says:

In the book A Forest of Kings, Schele and Freidel explain the fundamental importance of the Holy Lord...

Freidel (2008) says of this book that Beastie is quoting:

A Forest of Kings...is now thoroughly obsolete as a result in advances in textual decipherment and archaeology ("Maya Divine Kingship" in Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond)

The problem with Beastie is that she's read a number of books on Maya archaeology - over thirty, according to folklore about her - but she doesn't have a clue which ones are still current and which current ones are well-received in the field. I noticed she quoted Prudence Rice's book Maya Political Science earlier in the thread, which has been harshly critiqued by other leaders in the field (both in the literature and in private conversations I've had with them). Which is not to say Prue Rice is not respected in the field; she certainly is. But that does not mean her book was well received, and that is the fundamental flaw with Beastie. She simply does not know what is viewed as solid scholarship and what is not. To put it in perspective, I'm am currently working on my PhD in Mesoamerican archaeology (my dissertation is focusing on divine kingship among the Classic period Maya) and my bibliography - which represents books and journal articles that I have actually read - is nearing 600 references. And those are just the ones that have made it in to the dissertation; I've read hundreds more beyond that. I do not say this to boast; this is fairly typical of a dissertation. I merely say it to demonstrate that Beastie is not an authority and every time she cites a book, no matter how authoritative it may seem, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I will apologize in advance since this will be a drive-by post. I've sworn off the board to work on my dissertation, but I felt I needed to post this due to a couple of conversations I had at both Harvard and UT Austin within the past week with people who had been following this thread and had questions about Beastie's knowledge base.

Incidentally, the name "Beastie" is from Lounsbury's (R.I.P. 1998) misunderstanding of Palenque's mythology. He believed "Lady Beastie" was a female goddess; turns out he was a god. David Stuart describes him as the "Triad Progenitor" and we now call him Muwaan Mat, based on a phonetic reading of his name.

[Nomad]

Beastie says:

Freidel (2008) says of this book that Beastie is quoting:

The problem with Beastie is that she's read a number of books on Maya archaeology - over thirty, according to folklore about her - but she doesn't have a clue which ones are still current and which current ones are well-received in the field. I noticed she quoted Prudence Rice's book Maya Political Science earlier in the thread, which has been harshly critiqued by other leaders in the field (both in the literature and in private conversations I've had with them). Which is not to say Prue Rice is not respected in the field; she certainly is. But that does not mean her book was well received, and that is the fundamental flaw with Beastie. She simply does not know what is viewed as solid scholarship and what is not. To put it in perspective, I'm am currently working on my PhD in Mesoamerican archaeology (my dissertation is focusing on divine kingship among the Classic period Maya) and my bibliography - which represents books and journal articles that I have actually read - is nearing 600 references. And those are just the ones that have made it in to the dissertation; I've read hundreds more beyond that. I do not say this to boast; this is fairly typical of a dissertation. I merely say it to demonstrate that Beastie is not an authority and every time she cites a book, no matter how authoritative it may seem, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I will apologize in advance since this will be a drive-by post. I've sworn off the board to work on my dissertation, but I felt I needed to post this due to a couple of conversations I had at both Harvard and UT Austin within the past week with people who had been following this thread and had questions about Beastie's knowledge base.

Incidentally, the name "Beastie" is from Lounsbury's (R.I.P. 1998) misunderstanding of Palenque's mythology. He believed "Lady Beastie" was a female goddess; turns out he was a god. David Stuart describes him as the "Triad Progenitor" and we now call him Muwaan Mat, based on a phonetic reading of his name.

Oh, man!

I was afraid you might drop by here eventually.

Oh, well. After a couple very busy weeks of my own, I'm going to sit down in the next couple days and prepare the response to beastie's earlier comments regarding the alleged connection between a Mayan ball court and human sacrifice in any particular locale.

I will be drawing upon some of the most recent work on the topic as well, probably from people you know much better than I.

In any case, you underscore what a few of us have known for a long, long time: beastie's bluffs are extremely effective within the small and isolated domain of LDS-related message boards. But her "knowledge" of ancient Mesoamerica tends to be both obsolete and extremely narrowed by her focus on anti-Book of Mormon arguments.

Good luck on the dissertation. I'm sure there are many of us in the pool of "amateurs" who will look forward to reading it when it is completed.

I'll return again in a couple days to make my promised post ...

P.S. Are you saying, then, that "beastie" is not a star-eating dragon after all?

[poulsenll]

Oh, man!

I was afraid you might drop by here eventually.

Oh, well. After a couple very busy weeks of my own, I'm going to sit down in the next couple days and prepare the response to beastie's earlier comments regarding the alleged connection between a Mayan ball court and human sacrifice in any particular locale.

I will be drawing upon some of the most recent work on the topic as well, probably from people you know much better than I.

In any case, you underscore what a few of us have known for a long, long time: beastie's bluffs are extremely effective within the small and isolated domain of LDS-related message boards. But her "knowledge" of ancient Mesoamerica tends to be both obsolete and extremely narrowed by her focus on anti-Book of Mormon arguments.

Good luck on the dissertation. I'm sure there are many of us in the pool of "amateurs" who will look forward to reading it when it is completed.

I'll return again in a couple days to make my promised post ...

P.S. Are you saying, then, that "beastie" is not a star-eating dragon after all?

The reason I asked Beastie if she had read the Popol Vuh was because it clearly distinguishes between two different ballcourts. One in Xibalba and one in the real world. The one in the real world is called Honior and Respect and doses not include ritual sacrifice. It is the one in Xiblaba that represents death but it also represents the resurection and the conquest of death by the Hero twins. There was a fair amount of discussion about this at the recent Maya Meetings with Allen Chrtianson and other experts.

Larry P

[Hashbaz]

I just scanned through many of the posts here and realized there is a huge debate going on about the ballgame, human sacrifice, and the Popol Vuh. Everyone here should read this short article by my non-LDS friend and very recent PhD from Harvard, Alexandre Tokovinine (one of the brightest new epigraphers in the field):

http://www.mesoweb.com/features/tokovinine/ballgame.pdf

In sum, he says that there is absolutely no epigraphic or iconographic evidence that ties the Popol Vuh to the ancient ballgame, and that any sacrifice that may have been done in relation with the ballgame seems to have been done as part of its initial dedication, but not a part of the game itself. And even the evidence for actual human sacrifice at ballcourt dedications is quite limited.

A note on the Popol Vuh: Tokovinine is not the only one to call into question the over-reliance on the Popul Vuh recently. In the past several years, we have moved away from interpreting all ancient Maya iconography through the lens of the Popol Vuh - we have come to realize that much of what we thought was related is not. This is not to denigrate the Popol Vuh. I spent all last week in the Popol Vuh workshop at the Maya Meetings at UT Austin (the same one Larry mentioned above), but we are learning to appreciate it more for what it is: a local history of the Late Postclassic K'iche' Maya, not a generalized "Bible" for all ancient Maya cultures. On that note, we have a hard time even generalizing religion from one site to the next in ancient Mesoamerica. As Stephen Houston stated, "All religion was local religion". The gods worshiped at Palenque were not the same gods worshiped at Tikal, and the gods worshiped at Tikal were not the same gods that were worshiped at Copan, etc. Each site had its own origin myth, its own gods, and its own rites of worship. Clearly there were some overlapping elements, enough that we can lump them together as "Maya", but they themselves thought of each polity as an independent player in the political and cosmological realms, and it was far more heterogeneous than introductory textbooks (like the ones Beastie seems to favor) would indicate.

Now I really will disappear to go work on my diss.

[Nomad]

I just scanned through many of the posts here and realized there is a huge debate going on about the ballgame, human sacrifice, and the Popol Vuh. Everyone here should read this short article by my non-LDS friend and very recent PhD from Harvard, Alexandre Tokovinine (one of the brightest new epigraphers in the field):

http://www.mesoweb.com/features/tokovinine/ballgame.pdf

In sum, he says that there is absolutely no epigraphic or iconographic evidence that ties the Popol Vuh to the ancient ballgame, and that any sacrifice that may have been done in relation with the ballgame seems to have been done as part of its initial dedication, but not a part of the game itself. And even the evidence for actual human sacrifice at ballcourt dedications is quite limited.

A note on the Popol Vuh: Tokovinine is not the only one to call into question the over-reliance on the Popul Vuh recently. In the past several years, we have moved away from interpreting all ancient Maya iconography through the lens of the Popol Vuh - we have come to realize that much of what we thought was related is not. This is not to denigrate the Popol Vuh. I spent all last week in the Popol Vuh workshop at the Maya Meetings at UT Austin (the same one Larry mentioned above), but we are learning to appreciate it more for what it is: a local history of the Late Postclassic K'iche' Maya, not a generalized "Bible" for all ancient Maya cultures. On that note, we have a hard time even generalizing religion from one site to the next in ancient Mesoamerica. As Stephen Houston stated, "All religion was local religion". The gods worshiped at Palenque were not the same gods worshiped at Tikal, and the gods worshiped at Tikal were not the same gods that were worshiped at Copan, etc. Each site had its own origin myth, its own gods, and its own rites of worship. Clearly there were some overlapping elements, enough that we can lump them together as "Maya", but they themselves thought of each polity as an independent player in the political and cosmological realms, and it was far more heterogeneous than introductory textbooks (like the ones Beastie seems to favor) would indicate.

Now I really will disappear to go work on my diss.

Ah, Mark!

Now you've gone and stolen a good portion of my thunder!

Oh, well.

I guess I'll continue preparing my post for those who might be too lazy to read Alex's paper ...