Trees

[John Larsen]

I concur with your opinion. IIRC, contemporary nonbelievers viewed the BoM as specifically attempting to explain the moundbuilder civilization in the vicinity.

IMO, the BoM is a religious myth that captured the nineteenth century ideas about the origins of Native Americans. Religious myths are a part of all religions. My sole objection to the BoM debate is the insistence that it is actual history of an ancient American civilization. That isn't a religious claim, but rather an historical claim that is open to scrutiny.

The Mound Builders is a perfect example. We know that the practiced a kind of burial where they would bury their dead on top of their previous burial sites. They would also bury their warriors with their implements of war. Over time, these sites grew into large hills with many, many remains. Someone unschooled in archeology would dig down and be struck by the number of skeletons and weapons found. It would not be a far stretch of the imagination to assume that there were great battles in the area in which many warriors were piled high. A conclusion that can easily be disproved with even a small bit of rigor in digging methodology.

Today, we forget about this because these sites today are either protected or have been looted clean of their artifacts. However, if you read contemporary accounts these kinds of sites were quite common. So Joseph's writing struck a cord with the early readers. There was no doubt what Joseph was describing. It is only the passage of time that allows for the remote LGT to seem plausible.

[beastie]

That might mean something if you weren't an apologist of the first order.

I wasnâ??t using the term â??apologistâ?? in a pejorative manner. Charity accused me of saying she had tried to make the connection between Teotihuacan and Helaman, and was trying to help her see that isnâ??t what I had said at all.

Now you are an expert in 19th century American history as well as the ancient history of the entire South American continent? Awesome. We all want to hear more about those New England forests. With references.

I find it a rather perverse tendency of some on this site to repeatedly accuse posters who have simply attempted to educate themselves on certain topics of presenting themselves as â??expertsâ?. Do we really have to dumb down society in this way, to insinuate that anyone who makes an attempt to learn things is trying to pretend to be an expert, with all the pejorative associations of that accusation?

In fact, I have repeatedly asserted that Iâ??m not an expert in Mesoamerica (which you have apparently generalized to the entire ancient South American continent), but yes, I have studied the history of that area more than most people. In regards to this information about New England, I simply remembered this factoid from basic US history, and did a google search to make sure my memory was correct. It was. Although I already provided two references, here are more:

http://www.henrysheldonmuseum.org/land_to_...griculture.html

Between the late 1700s and the late 1800s, industrious European settlers removed more than half of Vermont's six million acres of forest cover, unknowingly effecting the most dramatic ecological transformation in the region's recent history. Closed forest and woodland had dominated the Vermont landscape for 12,000 years, playing a central role in a complex ecological system encompassing climate, drainage patterns, soil composition and quantity and species of wildlife. Deforestation literally transformed the landscape, and its effects were immediately perceptible. As early as 1794, Vermont historian Samuel Williams noted that cleared land soon became "warm and dry," while streams and brooks no longer supplied consistent waterflows.

Deforestation significantly and permanently altered the Champlain Valley ecosystem. Neither native Abenaki nor eighteenth century European settlers fully comprehended the complex ecological role of the forest, and neither group could have predicted the dramatic changes in the landscape caused by its removal. In the mid-nineteenth century, however, connections between deforestation and otherwise inexplicable environmental changes came into the public awareness, largely through the efforts of Vermont naturalist and historian George Perkins Marsh. Marsh expanded on the observations of his predecessor Samuel Williams, showing that changes in the microclimates, waterways and wildlife populations directly resulted from the clearing of forestland. [Lesson Meet Vermont's Naturalists] At a time when Vermont's agricultural economy was in serious decline, Marsh urged state and local agricultural agencies to direct reforestation efforts wherever possible in order to offset environmental damage already done.

Marsh's vision of an endangered natural world was controversial and pervasive, and gave rise to the first national conservation movement in the late nineteenth century. Ultimately, conservation efforts combined with the decline of New England's agricultural economy allowed 77 per cent of the Vermont landscape to return to forest. In the twentieth century, second-growth forests replaced much of the grassland and field habitat found on former farm and pastureland, and introduced tree, plant and wildlife species different in type and quantity from those of the old-growth forest habitat. The legacy of 'clearing the land' lies in this newly forested landscape, in the far-reaching ecological and economic implications of reforestation.

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/...cNo=20023104469

This paper considers the reforestation of New England from the mid-19th to the early 20th century. While the historical data are quite limited, I document a post-1850 flattening and eventual reversal of previous New England deforestation, even as population was increasing.

This book contains the paper referenced in the abstract:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0ru1XfqkG...snum=8#PPA67,M1

Here is another excerpt from that article:

By the early 19th century, permanent colonization and greater population density within a European-style agricultural production system had put New England on a path of at least semi-permanent clearing. This continued until about 1830, when deforestation appears to have slowed. For example., Raup discusses Petersham, Mass., where total clearing appears to have increased slowly in the late 1700s (10% in 1770 and 15% in 1790 overall). On one 250 hectare Petersham farm plot, clearing went from 11% clearing in 1770 to 77% in 1830 and 90% in 1850, indicating faster growth in the first half of the 1800s, while in the 1960s the town is 85% forested land. Foster both discusses this clearing trajectory in New England as a whole and analyzes specific sites.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1287752851.html

SHOLES, O. D. V. AND D. L. HAWKINS (Department of Natural Sciences, Assumption College, Worcester, MA 01609). Composition and Temporal Change of the Forest in 18th Century Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 134: 74-79. 2007.-By the middle of the 19th century, nearly all of central Massachusetts, USA, was cut at least once and 80% deforested. When did deforestation begin? We recorded all the trees and other corner markers used in 18th century proprietors' surveys of Shrewsbury, MA. From 1718-1799, the percentage of corner markers that were "trees" declined from 45% to 20%, and the relative abundance of white oak tended to decrease.

John:

The Mound Builders is a perfect example. We know that the practiced a kind of burial where they would bury their dead on top of their previous burial sites. They would also bury their warriors with their implements of war. Over time, these sites grew into large hills with many, many remains. Someone unschooled in archeology would dig down and be struck by the number of skeletons and weapons found. It would not be a far stretch of the imagination to assume that there were great battles in the area in which many warriors were piled high. A conclusion that can easily be disproved with even a small bit of rigor in digging methodology.

Today, we forget about this because these sites today are either protected or have been looted clean of their artifacts. However, if you read contemporary accounts these kinds of sites were quite common. So Joseph's writing struck a cord with the early readers. There was no doubt what Joseph was describing. It is only the passage of time that allows for the remote LGT to seem plausible.

Again, I concur. It is also the passage of time that allows modern readers to overlook the nineteenth century â??toneâ? of the text in general, as this conversation about deforestation demonstrates. Itâ??s interesting to me that, as far as Iâ??ve read, most of the early criticism of the BoM had to do with theology, rather than the history it presented. I think this is because the history the BoM presented was consistent with what nineteenth century Americans imagined about ancient America.