kennewick man

[Daniel Peterson]

Is there any evidence in the text of the Book of Mormon of horses being anything other than horses?

That, of course, isn't the point. (I realize that the point is a subtle one, and that it's not likely to be recognized or grasped if one is focused principally on shallow and hostile witticisms rather than on understanding it.)

The point is that different cultures conceptualize and classify and categorize the phenomena of the world around them in different ways. The article I cited gives some examples of this, specifially relevant to the categorization of animals. But examples could be multiplied far beyond fauna. Different languages conceptualize colors differently, for instance. Russian puts the dividing line between green and blue at a different point than English does, such that some things we would term green would, to a Russian, be blue. Arabic categorizes hair colors differently than does English. What we would describe as brown hair or even red hair is often, to Arabic speakers, "blonde." We should not assume that a foreign-language culture -- particularly a far distant and ancient one -- classifies things just the way we do.

The Greek word aetos is very often translated as "eagle," and that's how it's translated at KJV Matthew 24:28. But the translation there is almost certainly mistaken. Eagles don't typically gather in groups around carrion. What is the problem? The problem is that aetos represents a different categorization of birds than that to which we're accustomed. Although it certainly can refer to eagles, it can also refer to vultures -- and, at Matthew 24:28, it very likely does.

We have a very specific idea of the definition of a horse. But is it identical to that of the ancient Greeks? Did they classify things in exactly the same way? Not necessarily. This is apparent in their identification of the hippopotamus as a "river horse" (which is what the word hippopotamus means). Words in different languages almost never map onto each other precisely and without ambiguities. It is, frankly, somewhat simple-minded (anthropologically na

[Daniel Peterson]

I can see how this mix-up could have occured...

Cute, Kozaru. But there are other horses than Clydesdales. And your photographs don't actually address the zoological observations that my article cites.

The fact remains that it isn't only "Book of Mormon apologists" who are reminded of horses when observing Baird's tapirs. Moreover, much of the criticism of the tapir hypothesis rests unreflectively upon assumptions that cannot be justified anthropologically or linguistically, and have little or nothing to do with what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says.

[DG#23]

It's not an absurd assumption, but it nonetheless remains an assumption with no grounding in the actual text of the Book of Mormon.

You're exactly right. The Book of Mormon also mentions land, but it does not say that the Lamanites and Nephites actually walked on it. That is an unfounded assumption.

The tapir idea has never been more than a hypothesis, and it has typically been offered alongside an alternative but not groundless hypothesis postulating the survival of some horses into historic times.  If one hypothesis gains more support than another, we'll be inclined to prefer it.  There's nothing weird about that.

A hypothesis based upon the fact that horses didn't exist in the time and place that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon placed them. How is FARMS going to go about testing these hypotheses (A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation.), and when can we expect the results?

[Daniel Peterson]

A hypothesis based upon the fact that horses didn't exist in the time and place that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon placed them.

Nope. A hypothesis that flatly contradicts that proposition.

How is FARMS going to go about testing these hypotheses (A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation.), and when can we expect the results?

Horse bones have been recovered in historical Mesoamerican strata over the past several decades at several sites. There is an ongoing effort to apply Carbon 14 dating to them. Unfortunately, it's difficult because many of the specimens have been tossed out on the assumption that they must have resulted from site contamination. However, C-14 dating done by other agencies on pre-Columbian horse remains have already yielded dates during the period between Lehi's arrival and that of Columbus. FARMS has discussed these findings in several publications.

[DG#23]

Nope.  A hypothesis that flatly contradicts that proposition.

Wait, so you are telling me that the FARMS hypothesis that horses are tapirs doesn't come from an Ad Hoc explanation for an anachronism in the Book of Mormon?

Horse bones have been recovered in historical Mesoamerican strata over the past several decades at several sites.  There is an ongoing effort to apply Carbon 14 dating to them.  Unfortunately, it's difficult because many of the specimens have been tossed out on the assumption that they must have resulted from site contamination.  However, C-14 dating done by other agencies on pre-Columbian horse remains have already yielded dates during the period between Lehi's arrival and that of Columbus.  FARMS has discussed these findings in several publications.

Where can I find secular scientific articles that refer to this, and why is FARMS even remotely interested in the carbon dating of horse bones when it's assertion(hypothesis) is that horses are tapirs? Is FARMS not secure in their hypothesis that "horses" refers to "tapirs"?

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course people at FARMS recognize that the Book of Mormon's assertion of the existence of pre-Columbian horses represents a potential problem, just as its mention of barley represented a problem until pre-Columbian American barley was discovered.

So at least two provisional hypotheses have been proposed to account for the mention of horses.

This is scarcely a secret. And such hypotheses, designed to defend an overall paradigm, are not unusual, even in circles far removed from Book of Mormon studies and Mormonism and religion altogether. (Another reason to read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- one of the finest remedies for scientific and scholarly na

[DG#23]

Of course people at FARMS recognize that the Book of Mormon's assertion of the existence of pre-Columbian horses represents a potential problem, just as its mention of barley represented a problem until pre-Columbian American barley was discovered.

So at least two provisional hypotheses have been proposed to account for the mention of horses.

This is scarcely a secret. And such hypotheses, designed to defend an overall paradigm, are not unusual, even in circles far removed from Book of Mormon studies and Mormonism and religion altogether. (Another reason to read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- one of the finest remedies for scientific and scholarly na

[cinepro]

As I said, Mormons aren't alone in this. When the Conquistadores first arrived in Central America, for example, the local Indian tribes even called the Spanish horses and donkeys tzimin, or "tapirs."

That's very interesting. It certainly seems logical based on the Indian tribes' assumed lack of a word for "horse".

Now, how does that relate to the Book of Mormon translation process? We already know what happened when there were words that couldn't be translated. They were rendered as they were (curlom and cumom http://www.fact-index.com/c/cu/curelom.html )

Dr. Peterson, can you help me understand how your hypothesis fits into your understanding of the Book of Mormon translation process? Where do you think the word "horse" came from? Could it have originated anywhere other than God?

Here's where I get lost:

We have the word "horse" appearing several times in the Book of Mormon.

-It appears in the Book as we have it today, because the printer printed it there.

-The printer printed it there, because the printer's manuscript had the word "horse" there.

-The printer's manuscript had the word "horse", because the original manuscript had the word "horse".

-The original manuscript had the word "horse", because Joseph Smith said "horse", and the scribe wrote it down.

-Joseph Smith said "horse" because...?

That's what I want to know. Why did Joseph Smith say "horse" to the scribe?

If you say that the word somehow "came to his mind", please explain whether you think it came to his mind from his own imagination, or it was God speaking to him. Meaning, did the word come from the gray matter between Joseph's ears, or was it put there by God?

Of course, if you believe he read it off the seer stone, then the source would be God.

---------------------------------------------------

[Guest Just Curious]

Dan your whole gobbledygook translation answer is simply just that gobbledeygook. Don't you remember what the transcribers said...words appeared in english on the parchament and joseph dictated them and when they were read back if the words were right they disappeared and new words appeared...no mistranslation here. So you have to say that God did not know the difference between a tapir and horse, not Joseph, Joseph was simply reading the words God was putting in front of his face....but I am sure you have another explanation for that too.

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.

You simply cannot blame translational errors on Joseph and Oliver...any translational errors are Gods' fault unless of course Joseph and Oliver later came back and changed what was written down the first time...

[Daniel Peterson]

So your position is that horses were probably really tapirs, unless it is proven that they were really horses, that way, the BoM is vindicated no matter what the results of the tests are, because the BoM is true no matter what.  Did I get that right?

Unsurprisingly, no.

There is a logical possibility that the Book of Mormon is wrong, and that there were no horses present in the Americas during the relevant time and in the relevant place. However, since I am strongly committed on other grounds to a paradigm based upon the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon -- and, incidentally, this isn't mere question-begging; see Kuhn -- I'm also inclined to think that "horses" were indeed relevantly present.

It's rather analogous to the question of lions in the Old Testament. No archaeological discovery of lion remains occurred until, if I recall correctly, the late 1960s, despite far more favorable archaeological conditions than in Mesoamerica (e.g., dry, preserving climate, very little obscuring ground cover, and much more continuity in cultures) and despite much more intense archaeological activity; lions have evidently been extinct in Palestine since ancient times. Even more relevant is the question of horses among the Huns of Central Asia. The Huns were often described as "parasites on horses"; each Hunnic warrior probably had at least two horses, and the Hun hordes were vast. Still, no horse bones have, to this date, ever been found in a scientific archaeological dig in Central Asia. Yet not a soul seriously doubts the historical accounts of Atilla and his huge armies of horseback warriors.

Regarding "horses" in the Book of Mormon, there remain two essential possibilities, for both of which an argument can be made: First, that the horses were really horses in the modern English sense of the term. Second, that the "horses" were considered horses by the Nephites, whose classificatory habits may have differed -- it would be very surprising if they did not -- from ours, though we today would not consider such animals horses. Neither hypothesis is entirely unreasonable; neither has been established with sufficient strength to rule the other out of court.

For the record, if anything, I lean rather to the idea that some real horses may have survived into historical times. Archaeological stratigraphy and C-14 dating seem to offer cautious support for that claim. (One anthropologist. Ashley Montague, even argued in the 1940s that horses in America never went altogether extinct. He thought it implausible that the Plains Indians had instantly adapted their entire culture to horseback riding -- including horseback buffalo hunting -- immediately upon the very late introduction of horses to the Western American plains.) But, despite the na

[Guest Just Curious]

Still, no horse bones have, to this date, ever been found in a scientific archaeological dig in Central Asia

MEL Mallowan (1965, Early Mesopotamia and Iran, London, Thames and Hudson, p. 123) notes:

"...dating Tepe Hissar IIIB a little before 2000 B.C... in Hissar IIIB the skull of a horse was found and furthermore the horse is alleged to have been domesticated at Shah Tepe much earlier still, thus long anticipating the first appearance of it at Boghazkoy in Central Asia Minor in the early Hittite period...."

Tepe Hissar is a key archaeological site with vivid links to the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization with many seals, motifs, artefacts...

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C... In 1938 Mackay (FEM, Vol. I, p. 289) had remarked on the discovery of a clay model of horse from Mohenjodaro. 'I personally take it to represent horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised if it should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro'. About this terracotta figurine Wheeler wrote: (Indus Civilization, Cambridge, 1968, p. 92): 'One terracotta from a late level of Mohenjodaro seems to represent a horse, reminding us that the jaw bone of a horse is also recorded from the same time, and that the horse was known at considerably early period in northern Baluchistan... It is likely enough that camel, horse and *** were in fact all familiar feature of the Indus caravans.'... appearance of true horse from the neolithic sites of Koldihwa and Mahagara in Uttar Pradesh..." (Note: camel is also not depicted on Harappan inscriptions) The identification by Sharma has been endorsed by Prof. Sandor Bokonyi, Director of the Archaeological Institute, Budapest, Hungary (an archaeozoologist); he wrote in a letter dated 13 Dec. 1993 to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India: 'Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kachchha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoutbtful. This is also supported by an intermaxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war."

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse.' (Mackay 1938, vol. I, p. 289; vol. II, pl. LXXVIII).  Lothal has yielded a terracotta figure of a horse. It has an elongated body and a thick stumpy tail, mane is marked out over the neck with a low ridge. Faunal remains at Lothal yielded a second upper molar. Bhola Nath of the Zoological Survey of India and GV Sreenivasa Rao of the Archaeological Survey of India note (S.R.Rao, 1985, p. 641): 'The single tooth of the horse referred to above indicates the presence of the horse at Lothal during the Harappan period. The tooth from Lothal resembles closely with that of the modern horse and has pli-caballian (a minute fold near the base of the spur or protocone) which is well distinguishable character of the cheek teeth of the horse.' "However, the most startling discovery comes from the recent excavation at Nausharo, conducted by Jarrige et al. (in press). In the Harappan levels over here have been found clearly identifiable terracotta figurines of this animal." (Lal, 1998, opcit., p. 112).

[Kozaru]

[MAsh]

Not exactly a horse, but certainly horse-like is some regards.

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com

[Guest The Headless Laban]

Not exactly a horse, but certainly horse-like is some regards.

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com

Yes. It appears tapirs like to be scratched on their bellies and chins, just like horses.

[A Random Catholic]

Them's good eatin'...

[John Russell]

Getting back to the original question, Kennewick Man has been embroiled in lawsuits for thebetter part of 6 years, but was recently released by court order for further anthropological study. More information should be coming out in the near future. As was mentioned earlier, the cadaver is caucasoid, which is a rather broad definition (as are all "races") of peoples originating from portions of Central Asia, Europe, Middle East, and India. There are many interesting questions surrounding Kennewick Man's origins, but his presence is suggestive of multiple incursions into North America, some possibly relatively recent (he died about 9000 years ago). Something to look forward to.

The horse problem has not been a serious bother to me, as the persistence of biological material in the Neotropics from the past 8-10,000 years is at best underwhelming. The discovery of Kennewick Man in a more temperate climate points out how little we know about the paleohistory of this hemisphere.

[T-Shirt]

You guys obviously haven't seen this picture.

[Guest Just Curious]

I have a proposition....ok here it is -- Joseph was raised on a farm as we understand...now I propose we do this. We take a picture of a tapir, a picture of a Spanish Mustang (which according to Dan the peoples of meso america mistook for a tapir) and a picture of a pig. Then we go to 500 different farms and ask the people there which animal the tapir resembles most, the pig or the spanish mustang. I will put up 1 months income...any thinking against me will put up one months income...whichever animal comes out with the most votes that person wins the other persons income for one month. I am taking the pig and you will take the spanish mustang...or better yet, we will take a pig, tapir and spanish mustang and take it to a county fair and have people vote...are there any takers on this?

Secondly I still say that anyone who claims one animal to be another is denying the translation process. Do I need to post the translation process again for the 3rd time...oh what the heck ...here it is...

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

The only LOGICAL explanation is that someone came back and changed tapir to horse later....that is if you subscribe to the theory that the word horse may have been a tapir instead. Now just imagine if Joseph had left the word "tapir" instead of changing it to horse...wouldn't that have shot the credibility of the book up thru the roof...sure it would..now I can just hear you saying "but nobody knew what a tapir was back then in the US"...you are probably right, and they didn't know and still don't know what a curelom and cumom is either do they......NOPE

[raindancer]

As I said, Mormons aren't alone in this. When the Conquistadores first arrived in Central America, for example, the local Indian tribes even called the Spanish horses and donkeys tzimin, or "tapirs."

That's very interesting. It certainly seems logical based on the Indian tribes' assumed lack of a word for "horse".

Now, how does that relate to the Book of Mormon translation process? We already know what happened when there were words that couldn't be translated. They were rendered as they were (curlom and cumom http://www.fact-index.com/c/cu/curelom.html )

Dr. Peterson, can you help me understand how your hypothesis fits into your understanding of the Book of Mormon translation process? Where do you think the word "horse" came from? Could it have originated anywhere other than God?

Here's where I get lost:

We have the word "horse" appearing several times in the Book of Mormon.

-It appears in the Book as we have it today, because the printer printed it there.

-The printer printed it there, because the printer's manuscript had the word "horse" there.

-The printer's manuscript had the word "horse", because the original manuscript had the word "horse".

-The original manuscript had the word "horse", because Joseph Smith said "horse", and the scribe wrote it down.

-Joseph Smith said "horse" because...?

That's what I want to know. Why did Joseph Smith say "horse" to the scribe?

If you say that the word somehow "came to his mind", please explain whether you think it came to his mind from his own imagination, or it was God speaking to him. Meaning, did the word come from the gray matter between Joseph's ears, or was it put there by God?

Of course, if you believe he read it off the seer stone, then the source would be God.

---------------------------------------------------

I would love to know too. Also, if there were horses *and* tapirs at the same time? why would that not have been mentioned by God?

If the language of the time had no word for horse, then why when it was "translated" would this not have been translated to mean what it means to our modern language?

[Kozaru]

You guys obviously haven't seen this picture.

Can I get that on a shirt?

[Daniel Peterson]

Um, Just Curious? Asia and Asia Minor are not the same thing. Asia Minor is modern-day Turkey. Japan and China are not in Turkey. B

[Guest Just Curious]

* Terracotta warrior pits and earthenware kilns of Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD 220) in Weishan, East China's Shandong Province

The discovery has been marked as China's "third-largest pit of terracotta warriors and horses,'' says Professor Cui Dayong of Shandong University, who led the excavations.

I know this is not the exact time of attila the hun....but it is close...about 200+ years predating him...

The T

[Guest Just Curious]

Dan you might want to review this as well about horses in china...

http://www.sinorama.com.tw/en/show_issue.p...038e.txt&page=1

The earliest known archaeological documentation of the existence of horses in China is from the "Longshan culture." At Miaodigou (Henan Province), several fire pits dated about 5000 BC were excavated. Some contained bones of horses. These horses were used only for domestic or mystical sacrificial purposes.

During the Shang and Zhou periods, in order to serve in the afterlife, aristocrats, attendants, servants, soldiers, women, musicians, and, yes, horses, were sacrificed and buried with the deceased members of the royal family. At that time, it was a high honor to be buried with the king, emperor or high nobility.

[Guest The Headless Laban]

Hehe. That's pretty good, but it basically sums up apologetics in all fields. Everyone tries to shape the evidence to fit their theories. In a way, except for the most unbiases scientists, we are all apologists. Actually, even unbiased scientists have biases because they are human. Only a computer will take in information, and spit out results without bias.

[pseudogratix]

Only a computer will take in information, and spit out results without bias.

I guess you haven't heard of parameters.