Jump to content

BYU Archaeological Discovery in Chiapas, Mexico


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

The discovery involves the New World Archaeological Foundation and John Clark, among others:

http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15129548

And, predictably, the article is followed by scores of comments from hate-filled idiots who apparently have no lives. Feel free to skip their contributions.

Does anyone venture any sort of tie-in to the Book of Mormon with this find? The dates given seem to pre-date the Lehites, so would this be a late-Jaredite find? Or is it too far south?

Link to comment

Does anyone venture any sort of tie-in to the Book of Mormon with this find? The dates given seem to pre-date the Lehites, so would this be a late-Jaredite find? Or is it too far south?

For those people who equate the Olmec with the Jaredites, this would be late-Jaredite. I try not to make such clean divisions, because there is evidence that the Olmec were not a single culture/people, but rather a gross cultural type. Still, the influence in Chiapa de Corzo comes from the lower end of the Grijalva, which is Olmec territory. It corresponds with other movements of late-Olmecoid peoples up that river valley (after the linguistic split between Mixe and Zoque, with the Zoque moving south and the Mixe north).

Link to comment

Did any of those posting comments actually refer to Dr. Clark's excellent speech?

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

I skimmed only a few of the comments, but I saw nothing to indicate that any of the critics were operating at that level of information or sophistication. Perhaps I missed it.

Interesting speech/article by Dr. Clark! He doth almost convince the Mayans were Nephites. Not.

Dr. Clark apparently believes Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi, Alma and Moroni were Mayans because they used a 400-yr prophecy which - obviously? - fits the Mayan Long Calendar. Baktun! Baktun! Baktun!

Except Baktun was not a Mayan phrase: "Note that the name b'ak'tun is a back-formation invented by scholars." Invented by scholars. Typical. All based on the Long Calendar which predated the Mayans (and the Nephites) and thus not invented by the Nephites or the Mayans. Laughable. And despite Clark claiming the Nephite/Mayans were prophesying based on a non-existent Mayan phrase denoting 400 yrs, which neatly fits the Mayan Long Calendar, the Nephites had changed their calendar system to reckon their time from the coming of Christ - while the Mayan Long Calendar was still in use based on the date of August 11, 3114 BCE in the Gregorian calendar. Wow. How scholarly. Did the Mayans ever adjust their Long Calendar, which predated themselves, to fit a 400 year time period denoted by a non-Mayan phrase "Baktun" from the Birth of Christ? Apparently not. But Dr. Clark misses it.

And now that a non-existent Mayan phrase fits so conveniently with the Mayan Long Calendar, we are to believe the Nephites used a "vigesimal system of timekeeping and prophesying" because Moroni mentioned "420 years." Add a "Tun" to a non-existent Mayan "Baktun" = 420. How convenient. But didn't Moroni and Mormon mention other dates as well, such as 1 through 419?

In addition, I guess the Nephite/Mayans got all confused about Samuel the Mayan's prophecy that Christ would be born in five years, because they must have confused the Mayan Long Calendar with their shorter ones, despite what Clark claims:

"The Maya were obsessed with time, and they carved precise dates on their stone monuments that began with the count of 400 years."

But the Book of Mormon states:

"But there were some who began to say that the time was past for the words to be fulfilled, which were spoke by Samuel" the Mayan.

I guess they weren't obsessed enough with anything shorter than 400 years. Clark certainly wasn't. And his obsession was based on a false premise: Baktun!!

Link to comment
MountainMan

Baktun a non-existent Mayan phrase

I may fall short on the Book of Abraham conversations, but not so much with Mayan. I am on theses site about 2 hours a day studying and using them as references. Your opinion is well, wrong.

ArticleFigure-LongCountGlyphs.png

Bak'Tun is a Yukatek word part of the Mayan language that is from the Yucat

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I may fall short on the Book of Abraham conversations, but not so much with Mayan. I am on theses site about 2 hours a day studying and using them as references. Your opinion is well, wrong.

A glyph is not a pronunciation. It's a glyph. The word 'Baktun' for that glyph is a fabrication:

http://shii.org/knows/Mayan_astronomy

The Maya had two calendars; the tzolkin, ending in katun, and the Long Count, beginning with baktun. The word baktun is a fabrication of Mayan scholars. (See Michael John Finley's page) I will use "baktun" here because it is convenient but it is probably not Mayan.

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/sit.htm

An Open Letter to Robert Sitler

Hi Bob,

Sorry, no I don't have the original Yukatek Tizimin. However, I actually doubt that the word baktun is in it, since Sharer says that the word was coined in an intelligent guess by Mayanists, for the unknown word used for this period. Originally the Mayanists called it a "Cycle", and the 13-baktun cycle, a "Great Cycle". Makemson must have had a good reason for using it - either the Mayanists guessed right and the word for the "Cycle" was baktun, or there must have been an equivalent phrase.

Robert Sitler replies: 4/Apr/06:

Dear Geoff,

You

Link to comment
The Church has never "officially" said the Book of Mormon was in NY. Speculated perhaps, but many have also speculated it was in Mesoamerica. Some early church leaders said Palenque was a BofM site, which BTW was also opinion

Has there ever been an offical statement from the church as to where the peoples of the BoM were?

Daniel, I love your quote here:

But I would agree that you don't have anything remotely near slam-dunk proof for the Book of Mormon in the New World
. Have you now changed your mind due to this OP?

http://www.pbs.org/m...s/peterson.html

Link to comment

A glyph is not a pronunciation. It's a glyph. The word 'Baktun' for that glyph is a fabrication:

How convenient for the Maxwell Institute to channel Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi and Alma as Mayans - using a fabricated word for a glyph and a calendar that has no correlation with the Birth of Christ - on the happenstance notion that a civilization uses 400 year - 394 actually - measurements.

Cheers.

Who's claiming that the Nephites were Mayans?

Link to comment

Who's claiming that the Nephites were Mayans?

I never have, and most mesoamercanist do not think that either. I believe that Lehi's family were integrated into the Mayan system but were not the origins of the Mayan people. Mountainman is partially correct about Baktun not being a original Mayan word but the Etymology of Bak has Mayan roots (such as the Baktun glyph comes from the Mayan glyph "pic" which is also a word and the two are close phonetically. Also I haven't perused all 112 pages of the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (the Chumayel for short) but IIRC it had the word baktun in it. but I am not highly motivated to prove that mayanist got lucky in naming the glyph.

Anijen (the amateur mayanist ....)

Link to comment
A glyph is not a pronunciation

The Mayan Glyphs are syllabic in nature and combined syllabic glyphs (logograms) form words which can be pronounced (logosyllabically, is that even a word? ) . In fact when this was discovered with connections to the many Yucatan dialects (like Ch'olan or Yukatek) it was a great breakthrough in deciphering many unknown glyphs.

another example would be Bak and tuun

tuun is the word for stone, and Baak is the word for prisoner so baktun is a word coined by mayanist for ease in the calendar long count with the meaning imprisoned in stone and used in the calander as 20 k'atunes or 144000 days.

The word Baktun was invented by late 19th century epigraphers. Haab which was changed to tun as not to be confused with the 365 day year.

Link to comment

I never have, and most mesoamercanist do not think that either.

Yes, I was under the impression that a lot of the FARMS folk think that the Nephites were in Chiapas which is out of the Mayan area. It seems to be the only place that fits the Book of Mormon geographically.

Link to comment

A glyph is not a pronunciation. It's a glyph. The word 'Baktun' for that glyph is a fabrication:

How convenient for the Maxwell Institute to channel Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi and Alma as Mayans - using a fabricated word for a glyph and a calendar that has no correlation with the Birth of Christ - on the happenstance notion that a civilization uses 400 year - 394 actually - measurements.

Cheers.

Ever hear of a straw man?

Who has claimed that "Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi and Alma as Mayans"?

You loose creditability every time you continue with this straw man.

Link to comment

After some more research on the word -baktun-

I have found some more info, thanks to my friend Kim Goldsmith (the new director and head archeologist for the New World Foundation Chiapas)

"It's in the Cordemex. K' atun has a lot of diff. meanings, including a species of years - - hun k'atun is the correct phrase for 20 years; ka' k'atun 40, ox k'atun 60, etc. The word K'a tun by itself means "an important cult which celebrates the period of 20 years"

Also means: "Forever" (I'm thinking like in the way we say "oh yeah, I've been surfing forever/for a million years, etc.).

Bak'tun is in there as a period of 20 k'atunes= 144,000 days. So it looks like this is how they were keeping time all along, and that it is not just something new. WHEW! Now we know! Hun pik means 8,000 which apparently is(was) sometimes used when they in general counted to 20 Baks. It says here that the use has(at that time) reduced to meaning 1,000." KG

Link to comment

Who's claiming that the Nephites were Mayans?

Dr. Peterson earlier on this thread referred to an excellent article at the Maxwell Institute: http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

In it, Dr. Clark referred to Baktun under his 8th point: "8. Timekeeping and Prophesying "

"The Maya were obsessed with time," wrote Clark. "If you permit me some liberties with the text, Samuel the Lamanite warned the Nephites that one baktun "shall not pass away before . . . they [would] be smitten" (Helaman 13:9).

It certainly appears some Mesoamericanists believes the Nephites/etc. were Maya. If not, then why the "liberty with the text" ?

And being integrated into their system doesn't make them Maya? As early as 600 BC? (Clark refers to Nephi using "baktun").

And I'm using a strawman? What's next? The Maya were the "Others" in the Book of Mormon?

The Maya were neighbors to the Nephites and the Nephites used their calendar? And the Nephites used a modern-day word to describe the unknown word for a Mayan glyph?

The logic of Mesoamericanists is all over the map - with continual contradictions.

Here's another 'strawman' by Clark from his "excellent" article:

"Mesoamerica is a land of decomposing cities. Their pyramids (towers), temples, and palaces are all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith's day. Cities show up in all the right places and date to time periods compatible with Book of Mormon chronology. "

Decomposing cities in Mesoamerica is a blessing?

2 Nephi 10:10 - But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.

An excellent article? For whom?

Link to comment

... Mountainman is partially correct about Baktun not being a original Mayan word but the Etymology of Bak has Mayan roots (such as the Baktun glyph comes from the Mayan glyph "pic" which is also a word and the two are close phonetically.

How is it that I'm partially correct?

I'm referring to Mayanists who referred to Baktun being a "back-formation." Most "back-formations" have roots from the same language.

"Burgle" has roots from "Burglar". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burgle "Etymology: back-formation from burglar"

In this case, "baktun" a back-formation, was created by modern-scholars from "Mayan roots."

So Anjien, who's partially correct about baktun?

Link to comment

Ever hear of a straw man?

Who has claimed that "Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi and Alma as Mayans"?

You loose creditability every time you continue with this straw man.

Search Maxwell Institue for "Maya"

http://maxwellinstit...=Maya&search=Go

Prophecy Among the Maya

Maya Harvest Festivals and the Book of Mormon

Publications - Bookstore - A Thematic Bibliography of Ancient Maya ...

The Sacred Tree of the Ancient Maya

Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God, and Jesus Christ

Maya Origin Story Now on CD-ROM

BYU Anthropologist Addresses Maya Origins Puzzle

New Resource on Ancient Maya Writing Released

Out of the Dust - An Apparent Maya Prophecy for Our Day

Next 10 Search Results

Now you tell me about your credibility, Indiana Jones fan.

Link to comment

Search Maxwell Institue for "Maya"

Now you tell me about your credibility, Indiana Jones fan.

Do you believe that those who cite Canaanite and other local and surrounding populations to explore Israelite culture must believe that Israelites are Canaanite or Egyptian or whatever other culture is cited in comparison?
Link to comment

So Anjien, who's partially correct about baktun?

I think I will stick to the actual Mayan scholars the ones being correct. Everything I cited is from an expert in that field. Unless you have a PHD in any area remotely close to these studies I will continue to have their expertise trump your opinion.

As far as the Nephites being the Mayans I have to disagree there too. What I believe happened is a small group (Lehi's family) probably started off separate from the Mayans and overtime assimilated into the their polity. I will go on even further and theorize that many of the talents of Lehi's group made them a valuable asset to any group. Brant Gardners six volume series is a great source of information. Mark Wright, Kim Goldsmith, Clark and Sorenson are all experts in Mesoamerica Brant Gardner is a expert on the BofM and not to shabby on Mesoamerica either. Mark Wright, Sorenson, Clark are experts in both these areas as well. Dr. Goldsmith is a great scholar on Mesoamerica and a recent convert. They know what they speak about. I think you might be adding some of your own opinions of Brother Clarks remarks and applying them as his.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...