Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?

[ERayR]

I could be mean and add the ultimate possibility. That God put them there and allowed them to die out after the wars, and there just wasn't enough there for following cultures to adopt into their own "artforms".

JMS

Or the standard anti-mormon answer. Because the researcher is anti-mormon the data and conclusions can not be trusted because of bias and agenda.

[cdowis]

I could be mean and add the ultimate possibility. That God put them there and allowed them to die out after the wars, and there just wasn't enough there for following cultures to adopt into their own "artforms".

We could speculate that there at the war of extermination, there were very few wild horses, and the domesticated horses were killed or eaten during the course of the war. In any case, horses are no longer mentioned after 100AD.

[juliann]

Please check out my website page here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

for a detailed refutation of the Yucatan claim. I'd rather not copy and paste the entire section, becaus it's quite lengthy, but assume that anyone who is genuinely interested in real data on this claim will take the time to follow the link.

But to quote Tarski:

Paleontologists know what they are doing. Fringe archeologists/hobbyists and apologists do not.

[beastie]

But to quote Tarski:

Fortunately my website is comprised of citations from real archaeologists. I'm not a fringe archaeologist nor a hobbyist archaeologist. I've simpy put together pertinent quotes from real archaeologists.

[Jeff K.]

But real archeologists are not the final word, just as real doctors and real geologists aren't "the final word". Science, if one believes the myth, is open to change if evidence is provided. We know from real life experience that science fights as hard as religion to hold on to its beliefs. The history of science is repleat with such a stance.

I appreciate archeology and its catagorizatio of knowledge, but that doesn't mean it is correct in all aspects, though some put great faith in archeology and use it as "the final word" on the matter.

[Jeff K.]

In other words, science is not the final arbiter of truth, nor should those on the fringe or with fringe ideas be considered the heralds of bad science.

[Bob Crockett]

Please check out my website page here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

for a detailed refutation of the Yucatan claim. I'd rather not copy and paste the entire section, becaus it's quite lengthy, but assume that anyone who is genuinely interested in real data on this claim will take the time to follow the link.

You cite yourself for the refutation? You're no authority. Wading through the morass that constitutes your writing I don't see a refutation of the Ray article. Maybe its there. You cite it.

The Ray article has never been refuted by one of his peers. He went on to be a Smithsonian director.

Did you know that Gavin Menzies has argued that the Nez Perce horse stock is of pre-Columbian Asian origin?

Fortunately my website is comprised of citations from real archaeologists. I'm not a fringe archaeologist nor a hobbyist archaeologist. I've simpy put together pertinent quotes from real archaeologists.

Your website is impenetrable.

[juliann]

Fortunately my website is comprised of citations from real archaeologists. I'm not a fringe archaeologist nor a hobbyist archaeologist. I've simpy put together pertinent quotes from real archaeologists.

Fringe BOM hobbyist might be more accurate. Send people to the primary source instead of your very selective collection.

[Zakuska]

Beastie did quite a bit of research on this particular issue.

What she basically found was that the date of the actual dig site dated to 400AD, and they found these bones in the dig site. There was a mistake where somebody mistook the age of the bones as the age of the site. It has been corrected in most scholarly journals, but you can't un-print the books.

Zak, knowing this new information, will you accept it and stop using the sources you provided? It appears that EB and the children's book are mistaken.

Certainly Scottie,

Thank you and Ms. Beastie for all the great foot work you did tracking that one down.

But PS. As Ive also linked on this thread, the Scientists all question the younger dates because they don't fit their pre-conceived ideas on what they should be. So they continue to doctor the tests until they get their preconceived results they want.

The youngest date Ive found according to the CARD Data base on elephants/mammuthus is ~4300 BP. (Calibrated) That's very NEAR Jaredite times. Time will tell as more tests come in.

[juliann]

But PS. As Ive also linked on this thread, the Scientists all question the younger dates because they don't fit their pre-conceived ideas on what they should be. So they continue to doctor the tests until they get their preconceived results they want.

That is a bit extreme. This happens in scholarship, too. It takes time for momentum to build and few want to stick their necks out. As one "real" expert, Wade Miller, says they need to see more data for younger dates. They do have some. Who knows where this will lead. What is always of most interest, however, are those who hunker down and demand no change. The discovering has all been done. That is a rather odd position for anyone who claims to value science.

Regardless of dates, this article shows the growing distance between that kind of thinking and many of those who do the discovering:

http://www.cdarc.org/pdf/arch-sw-v14-no2.pdf

With the growing acceptance of the age and implications of the 12,500-year-old Monte Verde II site in Chile, the bottom has dropped out of New World prehistory for many of the attending archaeologists. The "Clovis First" and "Ice-free Corridor" models that have dominated American archaeology since the 1940s are now competing with models of earlier migrations and other routes of colonization.

The lead excavator of Monte Verde, Tom Dillehay of the University of Kentucky, has had to address numerous critiques. He sug-gested that a "Clovis Mafia," comprised of influential American archaeologists, has ignored convincing preClovis evidence from South America because it is not on their own turf and the artifacts are unfamiliar.

This isn't the first time I have come across an article that complains of North American experts tendency to ignore the specialists in South America writing about their own countries. I'll bet Beastie is not relying on Spanish articles for her selective book reports. Also of interest to those who think the discovering has just begun...

Other topics included the distinctive characteristics of early American skeletons, and the genetic diversity among living Native Americans. From these data, some physical anthropologists argued that the Americas were colonized more than once and by different peoples, including some "failed migrations"-biological populations that did not survive after arrival (see page .

The political pressures are also mentioned here among other things of interest. What matters for LDS is that new findings continue. What matters most to the antimos is that nothing changes. But as noted above, dates are changing.

I'd much rather be in a situation where new findings are awaited rather than the fundamentalist position the antimos must maintain. Because of their ridiculous stance Mormons are actually better placed. While Mormons theoretically need only one finding in the Americas the antimos must keep out all discoveries everywhere. New findings may not be helpful for Mormons, of course, but it isn't the date that matters right now, it is the increasingly divergent opinions of experts. (I think a lot of the fear in getting behind earlier dates is the association with the creationists and I don't blame them)

[handys003]

IMHO there comes a point when you can over analyze the use of the translation. The really only true way to know the intent of 'Horse" is to ask J. Smith. All the rest is argumentative supposition.

[USU78]

That is a bit extreme. This happens in scholarship, too. It takes time for momentum to build and few want to stick their necks out. As one "real" expert, Wade Miller, says they need to see more data for younger dates. They do have some. Who knows where this will lead. What is always of most interest, however, are those who hunker down and demand no change. The discovering has all been done. That is a rather odd position for anyone who claims to value science.

Regardless of dates, this article shows the growing distance between that kind of thinking and many of those who do the discovering:

http://www.cdarc.org/pdf/arch-sw-v14-no2.pdf

This isn't the first time I have come across an article that complains of North American experts tendency to ignore the specialists in South America writing about their own countries. I'll bet Beastie is not relying on Spanish articles for her selective book reports. Also of interest to those who think the discovering has just begun...

The political pressures are also mentioned here among other things of interest. What matters for LDS is that new findings continue. What matters most to the antimos is that nothing changes. But as noted above, dates are changing.

I'd much rather be in a situation where new findings are awaited rather than the fundamentalist position the antimos must maintain. Because of their ridiculous stance Mormons are actually better placed. While Mormons theoretically need only one finding in the Americas the antimos must keep out all discoveries everywhere. New findings may not be helpful for Mormons, of course, but it isn't the date that matters right now, it is the increasingly divergent opinions of experts. (I think a lot of the fear in getting behind earlier dates is the association with the creationists and I don't blame them)

This reminds me of the incident in Exupery's The Little Prince, where the Arab astronomer's discovery of the Prince's asteroid wasn't credited by "science" until he shed his traditional attire and bought a 3-piece suit.

[beastie]

I am not interested in discussing someone

[Bob Crockett]

Here is the 1956 Ray article from Museum of Comparative Zoology:

. . . .

The following statement is from the text "Ice Age Faunas of North America":

Neither publication exists. Care to comment upon that?

However, I direct your attention to Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America. Who is the author of the article you cite and what are his credentials? On the one hand, Ray was a Smithsonian director. On the other hand, Ice Age etc. consists of essays from, among other persons, cavers and undergraduates.

I don't dispute your argument that the evidence is thin about horses and improbable. (But then, there's Farley's "In Plain Sight.") If I were to advocate the presence of horses in North America before Columbus I'd be laughed at as were Profs. Fell and Gordon.

But, and you haven't commented upon this or refuted it, I wonder if there is increasing evidence of diffusionism; see Menzies' argument about the Nez Perce horses.

[juliann]

I am not interested in discussing someone

[juliann]

Neither publication exists. Care to comment upon that? .

Not likely...

But, and you haven't commented upon this or refuted it,

Not likely either...

I wonder if there is increasing evidence of diffusionism; see Menzies' argument about the Nez Perce horses

Some people will never wonder at all.

[beastie]

Neither publication exists. Care to comment upon that?

However, I direct your attention to Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America. Who is the author of the article you cite and what are his credentials? On the one hand, Ray was a Smithsonian director. On the other hand, Ice Age etc. consists of essays from, among other persons, cavers and undergraduates.

I don't dispute your argument that the evidence is thin about horses and improbable. (But then, there's Farley's "In Plain Sight.") If I were to advocate the presence of horses in North America before Columbus I'd be laughed at as were Profs. Fell and Gordon.

But, and you haven't commented upon this or refuted it, I wonder if there is increasing evidence of diffusionism; see Menzies' argument about the Nez Perce horses.

Bravo. You caught a typo. Well played.

At least you admit your sources are laughed at by mainstream scientists.

[beastie]

Dated? This is your source!! " Here is the 1956 Ray article from Museum of Comparative Zoology:"

The reason you can't ever engage in a dialogue here is your calculated refusal to engage what is presented to you. You rely on "go see my website!" which is a selective collection that excludes whatever doesn't support your scientific fundamentalism...and I don't even have to look at it to know what you do. You do claim to be an expert and have for years. Yet you do not know how to construct your book reports into a meaningful and scaffolded narrative. It is the same mistake the DNAsters made when they thought they could compete with geneticists because they read some books. It worked until the real geneticists stepped in. You do have lots of information but it is incomplete. And dated. The irony is that it is us poor religionists who are continually trying to bring in current thinking.

The Ray source is the source that crocket offered earlier on this thread, and to which other posters referred when they mentioned the Yucatan findings.

I have no interest in the rest of your accusations. It as just as I expected.

[beastie]

BTW, I've never argued against the possibility of Old World-New World contact. These strawmen are a good part of the reason I normally avoid this board.

[beastie]

Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammology 58:2 (May 1957). Ray went on to be some sort of big shot at the Smithsonian.

Gavin Menzies argues in one of his year-numbered books that the Nez Perce horse stock pre-dates Columbus.

One of Barry Fells' acolytes, Gloria Farley, published a book "In Plain Sight," containing pictographs of horses, but really, how do you date pictographs?

I think the above is weak, but there you have it.

Bumping up to help Juliann keep track.

BTW, the author of the cited chapter in the Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America, "A Preliminary Report of the Late Quaternary Mammal Fauna from Loltun Cave, Yucatan, Mexico, is

Dr. Joaqu

[juliann]

The Ray source is the source that crocket offered earlier on this thread, and to which other posters referred when they mentioned the Yucatan findings.

I have no interest in the rest of your accusations. It as just as I expected.

You haven't acknowledged the source I linked. I asked if you use Spanish publications. I asked if you addressed Dr. Miller. Here is another "accusation"....I'd like to know what journals you read on a monthly basis. You can catch me in more goofs because I have long since stopped wading through your quote collection so have at it...or as you say, bravo well done. But using it to dodge everything else is a bit transparent doncha think? You always find some excuse, though. My favorite is when you start pulling out the dictionary to redefine technical terms.

BTW, I've never argued against the possibility of Old World-New World contact. These strawmen are a good part of the reason I normally avoid this board.

If you do not address or acknowledge it trying to wiggle with "not arguing against it" is, well, another dodge. (If only it was a strawman, eh? ) And you obviously aren't avoiding this board. You have long since exhausted the patience of even our most even tempered expert so I guess you are stuck with me.

[Chris Smith]

Juliann paraphrases a BYU professor who wants to wait for more evidence before drawing a conclusion, then demands that beastie "address" this paraphrase as if it is some sort of shocking new evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Really?

As for Spanish sources, in the bibliography of beastie's page on horses we find the following: Schmidt, Peter. "La entrada del hombre a la peninsula de Yucatan," Origines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (Mexico: Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1988). This was a Spanish-language source used by the apologists, that beastie has taken the time to rebut. If additional Spanish sources came forward in support of pre-Columbian horses, I suspect she would track them down and answer them as well. As for your insinuation that she should go hunting through the Spanish-language literature on her own, I hardly think she has an obligation to do so. You are simply poisoning the well by setting up artificial and irrelevant goalposts.

[ERayR]

Juliann paraphrases a BYU professor who wants to wait for more evidence before drawing a conclusion, then demands that beastie "address" this paraphrase as if it is some sort of shocking new evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Really?

Beastie parades her biased research and assumptions as if it is somehow proof of her biases. Really?

[Chris Smith]

Beastie parades her biased research and assumptions as if it is somehow proof of her biases. Really?

Beastie's research and argumentation on her website is extensive and substantive. Can you say the same of your above assertion?

[ERayR]

Beastie's research and argumentation on her website is extensive and substantive. Can you say the same of your above assertion?

And very biased as she has a tendency to ignore anything that doesn't agree with her biases. Search her posts on this board. If your really interested do your own search. If your not then it makes no difference to me.