Animals in the Book of Mormon

[handys003]

Haha, this you say in post 65 after my post 64...

Nah.... I watch your other posts they are always respectful. Especially your not a grammar perfectionists (I can' say the other word), and don't use that to distract from an argument. If you speak, read and write several languages you probably understand the difficulties.

Again, I don't know much about it. In view of the fact that Hawaiian culture had no writing system until very late, I think it would be very difficult to determine which parts of the legends you mentioned originated when. Knowing what little I know about the subject, I think I would prefer the pottery evidence over the information from legends.

Part of a problem with Polynesian archeology. No written language except RongoRongo found in Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Only 21 tablets were found, and is undecipherable. According to natives the Jesuits who found such destroyed thousands of tablets except for a kapuna who saved a few in a lava tube. I bet it would open a can of worms so to speak. Polynesians basically had no writing system until the missionary people came. They were fascinated by the power of words that could be spoken, but also put on paper. At one point it is estimated that Hawaiians had the highest literacy rate in the world by 1880's. Hawaiians basically retold their legends through hulas and chants. These were also found recorded in the archives recently of the Hawaiian Kingdoms newspaper before the coup by the USA. They are in the process of being put in English, and due to be printed at a later date. Basically in the past due to the islands young in geological context not enough time for nature to make resources available to create a a writing liquid or type of paper. There are many petroglyph's however that are exactly the same as the S.W. Natives of the Americas. Hawaii Loa herald as the first Hawaiian to sail form the Land of Uru ( Peru)sailed north up along the coast line and landed in California in 55 BCE (est). He settled for a couple of years then sailed via the North Equatorial curren, and trades, and found Hawaii. He is kind of like the Viking version of Eric the Red. Hatu Matoa was presumed to sail form Land of Uru toward Rapa Nui in 255 BCE. Now these legends have been told for centuries and even survived the Marquesas priest Pa'ao in 1300 AD brining their (war god) Ku religion. Well I'm getting real deep here. Just a brief history on the legends if your interested.

As for the s-sound, is Hawaiian a member of the Austronesian language family or is it a completely different language?

Some want to put it there and some don't. Ever since the East to West theory which lumps Austronesian with Lapita culture together was introduced. it has been a dividing line among the people of Tahiti, Samoa, Hawaii, and Rapa Nui. Really when you look among these Polynesians I mentioned they have both similarities, and also no similarities in the language aspect. Especially when it comes to Hawaii and Rapa Nui. There is almost none. The fact that Hawaii has little resemblance to Tongan and Melanesian is almost paramount. I would suspect the the Marquesas invasion in 1300 AD may have been influenced and assimilated in Hawaiian and several other Polynesian islands which gives the appearance to such Austronesian linkage.

Points to consider;

1)Lack of 90% (est) of Hawaiian/Rapa Nui language not similar in Austronesian language

2)Lapita art not to be found in Hawaiian or Rapa Nui in any similar form.

3)Knowledge of lands to the East of both islands. How would a culture who had not yet made their way to lands east (Americas) have knowledge of such?

4)Astronomy knowledge exactly in star charts with similar legends of the Americas and not S.E. Asia

5)Kulo (taro), sweet potatoes, to which the Melanesian Islands never had until the English brought such in the 1820's such as Fiji and Gilbert islands.

6)The stone sculptures in Rapa Nui exactly as the same as the Cloud people in Peru, yet no where to be found in the other islands in the Pacific. Such sculpture technique is not of Lapita origin.

7)Petroglyph's of Hawaii and Rapa Nui are also not indicative of Lapita culture, but are of exactness of S. W. tribes pf North and Central America.

No evidence of any Polynesian art in S. America or weaponry, yet similar art and weaponry in Hawaii and Polynesia. Example as Hawaiians swords made with shark teeth and Lava rock as the same as the Meso-American culture swords with Abyssinian in the same exact manner. Headress and cloaks same as tribes in Meso-America and not of Melanesia.

These are just a few points with many more. It's overwhelming of West of east instead of East to West.There are some Hawaiians who want to live the illusions that they maintain they discovered S. America first, but that is false Nationalistic sovereignty pride. There are many Hawaiians who disagree with such premise. this has even led to a split in the Polynesian Society (sad).

Now do you think pottery chards and slight evidence of language (austronesian) should out weigh stone sculptures, weapons, other art. rongorongo, and food as maintained not only by legend, but physical evidence as well. I did not also get into the notes of the same math and voyaging canoes along with time in sailing against current from the east to Hawaii vs. west form the Americas and the logisitcs. Something to consider. Aloha and mahalo for the patience to read this long diatribe.

[Ariarates]

With regards to your claim that Little Barley is not a type of Barley that is a distinction without much of a difference.

Again I have not claimed we have found evidence for the elephant in the Americas in the correct time frame of the Jaredites. There is nothing in the BoM of how prevalent they were. I assume you are aware of the finding of Troy a little over a century ago. We have literally just scratched the surface of Mesoamerica. Your flat out denial of the possibility of elephants in BoM Times is premature at best.

OK, I guess that's it then:

- even if barley and little barley are distinct species, that doesn't really matter

- there may be no evidence for BoM elephants, but that's just because we haven't found it yet.

BTW, I'm not "flat out" denying " the possibility of elephants in BoM Times", I'm merely concluding, based on the available evidence, that they weren't there. Is it possible that they were? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Not very, when you compare the one mention in a book of questionable historicity (at best) with all of the other available evidence. You stick to the one mention, I prefer the rest of the evidence. Let's agree to disagree.

[phaedrus ut]

Reading this comic this morning I couldn't help but be reminded of this thread.

Phaedrus

[ERayR]

No, you

[ERayR]

OK, I guess that's it then:

- even if barley and little barley are distinct species, that doesn't really matter

- there may be no evidence for BoM elephants, but that's just because we haven't found it yet.

BTW, I'm not "flat out" denying " the possibility of elephants in BoM Times", I'm merely concluding, based on the available evidence, that they weren't there. Is it possible that they were? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Not very, when you compare the one mention in a book of questionable historicity (at best) with all of the other available evidence. You stick to the one mention, I prefer the rest of the evidence. Let's agree to disagree.

Try this: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/12/elephants-or-gomphotheres.html References are included in the article.

[Ariarates]

I don't know where you got your definition of domesticated

This is where I got my definition of domestication. It's not so much a definition as a description. The article is highly relevant to this thread; at the very least, you'll know where I'm coming from.

To domesticate is simply "to tame and breed wild animals for human use." (Yourdictionary.com). In the case of Picary a simple pen will suffice as has been pointed out it is already being done. Wildlife farming is simply raising (domesticating) animals that are normaly wild. In the area where I live it is done with Elk and Bison. In either case it takes additional fencing requirements but it is done.

After you've read the article above, I think you can imagine why I do not agree with these statements. I am not a native English speaker so I may be way off here, but I suspect that equating taming with domesticating is colloquial usage.

I don't understand why you think they must grow fast, bison take about 2 1/2 years to mature.

Maybe I should have said relatively fast. Elephants, for example, would yield a lot more meat but take ten years or more to mature. The higher the expected returns, the more time and money you will be willing to invest.

Why they must grow large, chickens are not what I would call large.

Chickens are also held for their eggs. Traditionally, only the old ones end up in the soup. Even today's intensive chicken farms destroy the male chicks as soon as they hatch and keep only the females, first for eggs and a year later for meat.

If an animal has other uses, size may be less important (the article mentions that wild cattle were bred te become smaller, for instance).

Why they must be docile, neither bison or elk are what I would call docile but enhanced fencing keeps them contained.

If you're a farmer, you don't want to chase your animals all the time because they break out or panic; neither will you appreciate being attacked all the time. You can keep wild animals in the way you describe, but that's not domesticating them.

Question: Are you at all familiar with animal raising?

Yes, I spent the first twenty or so years of my life on the farm. You?

[Ariarates]

Try this: http://mormanity.blo...mphotheres.html References are included in the article.

Looks like Jeff missed a recent edit here - which makes his entire blog entry completely beside the point. Who's going to tell him?

[ERayR]

This is where I got my definition of domestication. It's not so much a definition as a description. The article is highly relevant to this thread; at the very least, you'll know where I'm coming from.

After you've read the article above, I think you can imagine why I do not agree with these statements. I am not a native English speaker so I may be way off here, but I suspect that equating taming with domesticating is colloquial usage.

Maybe I should have said relatively fast. Elephants, for example, would yield a lot more meat but take ten years or more to mature. The higher the expected returns, the more time and money you will be willing to invest.

Chickens are also held for their eggs. Traditionally, only the old ones end up in the soup. Even today's intensive chicken farms destroy the male chicks as soon as they hatch and keep only the females, first for eggs and a year later for meat.

If an animal has other uses, size may be less important (the article mentions that wild cattle were bred te become smaller, for instance).

If you're a farmer, you don't want to chase your animals all the time because they break out or panic; neither will you appreciate being attacked all the time. You can keep wild animals in the way you describe, but that's not domesticating them.

Yes, I spent the first twenty or so years of my life on the farm. You?

In one of my past lives I was a farmer for about 20+ years. I have raised cattle, horses, pigs, chickens and other livestock. No chicken farms do not destroy the males and keep only the females. That is done only on egg farms. There are chicken farms that do nothing but raise chickens for eating. The tye of chickens they raise are a different breed and are raised by the millions stricktly for meat.

I quite agree that if you are a farmer you don't want to be chasing your animals all the time. That is what fences and pens are for. Yes domesticating them means keeping them fenced in a controled area where they are bred and raised for the use of humans.

As for being attacked all the time I have had some very aggressive mama pigs(sows) that one had to be very careful with when moving them from pen to pen. I've had to vault fences more than once.

If you are not a native english speaker this may be where some of your misunderstanding is coming from. To take an animal and pen it, breed it and keep it for human use is domesticating it no mater if the type of animal is normaly classified as wild or not. An example that comes to mind that you might be familiar with is horses. We have herds of wild horses that roam free but they are at times captured and contained in fenced enclosures and used for human benefit.

Hope this helps.

[ERayR]

Looks like Jeff missed a recent edit here - which makes his entire blog entry completely beside the point. Who's going to tell him?

Perhaps it was you who missed the ramifications of the bones that were FOUND. It seems that, despite previous opinions, at least some were alive until 400CE.

[Ariarates]

chicken farms do not destroy the males and keep only the females. That is done only on egg farms. There are chicken farms that do nothing but raise chickens for eating. The tye of chickens they raise are a different breed and are raised by the millions stricktly for meat.

Hmm, that's where my personal bias kicked in then. I live in an area that produces over 9 billion eggs annually and never knew about meat chickens (never thought about it either). Still, my guess would be that these meat chicken farms must be of industrial dimensions and they will probably use special breeds (maybe even genetically engineered ones) and loads of hormones and antibiotics. That would make the chicken example rather moot for our discussion, unless some ancient Americans ran specialized meat chicken farms.

As for being attacked all the time I have had some very aggressive mama pigs(sows) that one had to be very careful with when moving them from pen to pen. I've had to vault fences more than once.

Nothing like the sight of a farmer being chased by an angry pig (or vice versa). Usually only happened when we wanted to slaughter one and the person wielding the sledgehammer missed.

If you are not a native english speaker this may be where some of your misunderstanding is coming from. To take an animal and pen it, breed it and keep it for human use is domesticating it no mater if the type of animal is normaly classified as wild or not.

Well, there you have it then. The link to the article I posted earlier should at least clear up that misunderstanding (although I did explain what I considered "domesticating" to mean in that other thread).

[Ariarates]

Perhaps it was you who missed the ramifications of the bones that were FOUND. It seems that, despite previous opinions, at least some were alive until 400CE.

Where did you get that from? The earliest reference I can dig up predates the Jaredites by about 5,000 years?

[LeSellers]

even if barley and little barley are distinct species, that doesn't really matter

Would a V man in Mezoamerica recognize the diffrences? How about a man in XIX USmerica?

A botanist, maybe. A military leader and prophet whose language probably lacked the words to differentiate? I doubt it. A farmer in backwoods New York, who may never have seen either grain? Highly unlikely.

Lehi

[Ariarates]

Would a V man in Mezoamerica recognize the diffrences? How about a man in XIX USmerica? A botanist, maybe. A military leader and prophet whose language probably lacked the words to differentiate? I doubt it. A farmer in backwoods New York, who may never have seen either grain? Highly unlikely.

On the contrary. The difference is so evident that little barley was immediately replaced by corn or real barley or wheat as soon as those crops reached places where little barley was all they had. That's why, after thousands of years, these latter crops are still the world's staple while little barley is reduced to the status of a roadside weed.

Not only would ancient farmers recognize the differences, they did.

[LeSellers]

The difference is so evident that little barley was immediately replaced by corn or real barley or wheat as soon as those crops reached places where little barley was all they had.

Which presupposes true barley (if I may) "reached" the area of Mesoamerica before Moroni closed and sealed the plates. If it had not, then neither he nor any of the Nephites would have had any reason to differentiate between the two, would they have?

That's why, after thousands of years, these latter crops are still the world's staple while little barley is reduced to the status of a roadside weed.

As above.

Not only would ancient farmers recognize the differences, they did.

They did when they had both grasses to compare. Which you assume to be the case among the Nephites. You assume it with no particular basis for doing so.

Lehi

[Zakuska]

Well this certianly should put Ariarates contention to bed... r.e. little barley... "domestication"...

Hordium pussillum was named by Thomas Nuttall in 1818. THe species grows from Delaware to Washington, south to FLorida, Lousiana, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (Fernald 1950, Kearney and Peebles 1951).

It has been known for some time that little barley was cultivated 200 years ago by the Hohokam of Arizona (Gasser 1982, Asch and Asch 1985). Gayle Fritz also identified it in the Spiro site of Oklahoma (Yarnell in Asch and Asch 1985). However, it was not until somewhat later that it was realized that it also was cultivated in Illinois (Asch and Asch 1985).

Little barley may be one of the dominant "seeds" (caryopses) in Late Woodlang or Mississippian archacological sites, and dates to 2550-2770 +- 70 BP. (600 800 BC). More Recently, Fritz (2000b) concluded it was domesticated by 2000 B.P. However, little barley was one of several highly nutritious native foods in the eastern Agricultural Complex that was abandoned when maize became the predominant American grain (see also Chenopodium, Helianthus, Phalaris). Moerman (1998) did not mention this Species.

Florida ethnobotany By Daniel F. Austin

[Ariarates]

Which presupposes true barley (if I may) "reached" the area of Mesoamerica before Moroni closed and sealed the plates. If it had not, then neither he nor any of the Nephites would have had any reason to differentiate between the two, would they have?

Not quite. When I wrote "as soon as" I didn't mean during BoM times. There is no evidence for barley or wheat in the Americas before Columbus. But it's not just a matter of absence of evidence; if there had been barley or wheat in the Americas before Columbus, it would have replaced other crops almost instantaneously because the yields of barley and wheat are significantly higher than those of little barley. The fact that little barley was cultivated in some places is positive proof that no better crops were available there.

They did when they had both grasses to compare. Which you assume to be the case among the Nephites. You assume it with no particular basis for doing so.

No, I do not assume that (see my previous remark).

[Ariarates]

Well this certianly should put Ariarates contention to bed... r.e. little barley... "domestication"...

What contention re. little barley would that be? I don't remember writing anything that contradicts your quote. In fact, the last lines of your quote confirm what I said about little barley being instantly replaced as soon as something better comes along.

Maybe you should try to read what I write more closely before commenting on it.

[Zakuska]

What contention re. little barley would that be? I don't remember writing anything that contradicts your quote. In fact, the last lines of your quote confirm what I said about little barley being instantly replaced as soon as something better comes along.

Maybe you should try to read what I write more closely before commenting on it.

Either way... the critics whine that "barley" is a BOM anachronism is false.

[Ariarates]

Either way... the critics whine that "barley" is a BOM anachronism is false.

Spoken like a true apologist.