Sympathy to New York Cumorah Possibility

[Brant Gardner]

(1) There has been uncovered evidence of cement in and around Cumorah. We have the prophet's own words and testimony on that.

Interesting. However, that doesn't qualify for the textual requirement in the Book of Mormon. There are multiple elements required to fit the text in Helaman. First, if must be north of Book of Mormon lands - so finding cement around Cumorah and assuming a Great Lakes setting doesn't fit the textual requirement. It must be north of that. Secondly, there must be deforestation. That is really difficult to find in upstate New York and for quite a way into Canada. Then, the cement buildings (as a major building component in lieu of wood) must be found around many waters. I would guess that the Great Lakes would qualify, but I can't find the other conditions north of them.

(2) An ignorant farm boy, Joseph Smith, wouldn't know the distinction between using cement as some sort of a verb as opposed to identifying a substance correctly as a noun.

I agree that cement may or may not mean what we mean by the term. However, that is still not the point. It still has to be found (whatever it was) in a region of deforestation, north of Nephite lands, and in an area of many waters.

The Helaman reference was an important one for Mormon, it certainly appears to have described a real place with a substantial population. Neither in the Great Lakes, nor especially north of there, do you find large populations.

It is the set of requirements that don't fit, not the idea of "cement."

But the fact that every single FARMS Review article dealing with Book of Mormon geography either supports the LGT or is critical of a theory which puts the main events in North American, I'd say that we can detect an editorial philosophy.

I don't know that the editorial policy necessarily favors a theory as theory. What it favors, is articles and books that meet academic standards. That means that even when there are books that support the "Sorenson heresy" as you have called it, they may not get a good review if they don't argue their points well.

In the case of books or articles supporting an alternate theory, I have yet to see one stand up to the textual requirements. The strongest argument is based (as you have indicated) on the force of traditional statements. Those statements would be more impressive were they not based on tradition and if there were any geography that supported them that could fit both the text and the known history/archaeology of the region.

[Bob Crockett]

Interesting. However, that doesn't qualify for the textual requirement in the Book of Mormon. There are multiple elements required to fit the text in Helaman. First, if must be north of Book of Mormon lands - so finding cement around Cumorah and assuming a Great Lakes setting doesn't fit the textual requirement. It must be north of that. Secondly, there must be deforestation. That is really difficult to find in upstate New York and for quite a way into Canada. Then, the cement buildings (as a major building component in lieu of wood) must be found around many waters. I would guess that the Great Lakes would qualify, but I can't find the other conditions north of them.

I am not wedded to a Great Lakes theory. Charles Mann posits the theory that preColumbians were engaged in massive deforestation on the grandest scale, from the Northeast, to the Great Plains, to Amazonia. I wonder if the possibility exists that adobed housing could have applied to such a deforested area in North America. Mann also, citing authorities, argues for great and large populations in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys.

I just think that when Helaman was talking about cement it wasn't of the Portland variety.

To quote from somebody I admire, to overpolemicize a nest of complex issues, the Central American thesis has the bulk of textual and scientific evidence on its side, but the New York thesis has the sanction of Church tradition on its side. (What a terrible choice for a gospel hobbyist to have to make!) Those arguing for a Central American Cumorah emphasize statements from the Book of Mormon and tend to disregard statements attributed to General Authorities on geography matters. In contrast, those arguing the New York thesis tend to do the opposite; they stress modern statements, however ambiguous, and pay lip service to the internal evidence from the Book of Mormon. Common ground eludes both camps, and the two groups disagree about what should count as primary evidence, how various classes of evidence should be weighed and evaluated, and what the logical bases for deriving sound inferences from evidence ought to be.

[Bob Crockett]

Please be courteous with your words. Applying heresy to someone who is a respected member of their religion is inflammatory.

[livy111us]

Mann also, citing authorities, argues for great and large populations in the Mississippi and Ohio valleys.

I have not read this work, but am very interested to know more about this. There were large populations AFTER The Book of Mormon, but DURING the time period of The Book of Mormon, the Hopewell lived in 1-2 family hamlets and small villages. Their total populations wouldn't even match the number of Lehites killed in large battles, DURING the time period of The Book of Mormon. I bumped a topic on the issue of the Hopewell population that you may be interested in. If he is speaking about post-BOM Indians, then I would agree that there were large populations. But doubt these populations he speaks of are anywhere near the time period of The BOM

[Bob Crockett]

I have not read this work, but am very interested to know more about this. There were large populations AFTER The Book of Mormon, but DURING the time period of The Book of Mormon, the Hopewell lived in 1-2 family hamlets and small villages. Their total populations wouldn't even match the number of Lehites killed in large battles, DURING the time period of The Book of Mormon. I bumped a topic on the issue of the Hopewell population that you may be interested in. If he is speaking about post-BOM Indians, then I would agree that there were large populations. But doubt these populations he speaks of are anywhere near the time period of The BOM

Mann's The Atlantic article which summarizes his life's work is at http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/03/mann.htm; difficult to read in this format, but he talks about extraordinarily high population counts in North America as well as the practice of Native American deforestation. He also says that the forests quickly filled in with the arrival of the Europeans and the biological genocide of the Natives.

[livy111us]

Great, thank you. I'll read it right now.

[Bob Crockett]

Great, thank you. I'll read it right now.

I know this topic has been addressed before, but I also wonder about the accuracy of population counts and army counts. I'm in the middle reading simultenously the autobiographies of U.S. Grant, W.T. Sherman and Jeff Davis. They all note the same thing, the unreliability of army size counts and especially war casualties. All three suggest a willingness by historians to inflate the size of the enemies' armies as well as deaths. I remember even in modern times the false military estimates of Viet Cong deaths.

And, is it really possible to believe that the Children of Israel leaving Goshen had in excess of 1 million men? That would suggest a population count of 4 million people.

[livy111us]

That looks like a very interesting book that I will have to read, thanks for sharing. A few quotes:

"...he concluded that in 1491 North America had 1.15 million inhabitants."

"Before Columbus, Dobyns calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people. Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the Americas than in Europe."

But the populations that are mentioned are estimates from 1491, over 1,000 years after the end of The Book of Mormon. Around 500-900 AD, there was a population explosion in North America, but as mentioned before, there were a very small number of Indians in the Eastern US, specifically in the Great Lakes area. The population was so small that you could compare it to somewhere like rural Kansas, with a small population scattered over a large area.

[livy111us]

I think that is a valid argument, but think that the population numbers are pretty accurate in The BOM. You may be interested in this article published by James E. Smith in the FARMS Review. He is a professional demographer and does a great job at looking at BOM populations and population growth.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1&id=141#note78

One may be able to dismiss large numbers if they are only mentioned a few times, but we have large numbers that are mentioned by numerous authors throughout the text, that all correspond with each other. Several of these numbers are not broad numbers, but are exact counts of the bodies that were buried.

Mosiah 9:18-19 we did slay three thousand and forty-three; we did slay them even until we had driven them out of our land

[Danite3459]

The two Cumorahs theory. The one the Ensign edited out of Sorenson's draft, it seems. I've been on record as saying that I don't take exception to the view that Book of Mormon events could have taken place in Mesoamerica.

Robert,

I am not talking about what was edited out of the article prior to publication.

I am talking about was was included in the article in the published version.

And more is included than just the idea of a Mesoamerican setting.

It is not correct or accurate to say as you do that the two Cumorah theory (that the final battlefield was somewhere in Mesoamerica and that the plates were afterward carried to and buried in the New York hill) was not included after editing. The words "two-Cumorah theory" were not included in the printed text, but the theory is right there in the published version if you examine the reference.

Here it is again

[Bob Crockett]

He may be wrong or he may be right, but he does clearly speak of this in the published Ensign article. So, Brant's comments notwithstanding, I am puzzled as to why you keep saying that the "two-Cumorah" theory was edited out of the published version because for all intents and purposes it is still there.

Because that's the way I read the article; I commented upon it; Brant and Robert F. Smith confirmed it.

[poulsenll]

name='rcrocket' timestamp='1298741564' post='1208978417']

The two Cumorahs theory. The one the Ensign edited out of Sorenson's draft, it seems. I've been on record as saying that I don't take exception to the view that Book of Mormon events could have taken place in Mesoamerica.

Robert,

I am not talking about what was edited out of the article prior to publication.

I am talking about was was included in the article in the published version.

And more is included than just the idea of a Mesoamerican setting.

It is not correct or accurate to say as you do that the two Cumorah theory (that the final battlefield was somewhere in Mesoamerica and that the plates were afterward carried to and buried in the New York hill) was not included after editing. The words "two-Cumorah theory" were not included in the printed text, but the theory is right there in the published version if you examine the reference.

Here it is again

[SkepticTheist]

thanks Larry. I appreciate your backup on that one.

Ed

Ed

You are right, the many waters described in the Limhite record of their travels was probably at the mouth of the Usamacinta river based on the assumption that the expedition took the wrong river. Ramah/Cumorah was in the Land northward. How far north depends on ones particular assumptions and interpretation of the text.

See:

http://www.poulsenll.../tworivers.html

Larry P

[SkepticTheist]

Very true. This is why the Heartland and LGL theories do not work. Because really, plausibility now (as far as I see it) has been reduced to only those models that incorporate Mesoamerica somehow. Because it is only a Mesoamerican theory of some sort that has evidence for cement in a land northward (Teotihuacan being one of the places it is found if I remember right).

Or, Moroni was from Mesoamerica and took the knowledge of cement with him when he buried the plates at the NY Cumorah. There is no other evidence of cement in that area, and is an anomaly. I think this would fit the description best out of the three possibilities.

[SkepticTheist]

If someone is a supporter of the Mesoamerican LGT, then they do not believe in a NY Cumorah. I am trying to find possible contributors for a site that I am trying to create. It could be that I'm going to be flying solo like I always have.

If someone believes in Mesoamerica, and they believe in a Cumorah in New York, by definition, that is not a LGT, but something broader. Like an extended LGT, not quite a Hemispherical theory. It doesn't quite fit in any usual category but is somewhere in the middle.

Does even one of those who support a Mesoamerican LGT not accept a New York Cumorah? Is this all just sympathy for the devil?

[SkepticTheist]

I am pretty surprised by this, but I just found out about this this week. As it turns out, Andrew Hedges used to be one of the editors of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and is now working on the Joseph Smith Papers project.

I assure you that he is NOT a Mesoamericanist. While not committing to the New York Cumorah as his favored candidate, I can assure you that his articles argue for a more extended geography, and his arguments, I have found, have a lot in common with my own. I REALLY wish I would have known of him before I published this book. Anyway, I'm in contact with him now. I only found out about him because Robert Smith brought that article of Roper's to my attention, and Roper's article was actually in response to Hedges' articles. Of course, Roper was trying to maintain the Mesoamericanist certitude. But if I can find more out there like Hedges, perhaps I can start some pushback on the Mesoamerican Cumorah theory. Its good to know that there is at least one other person in this world besides myself that has sought to aim some skepticism towards that theory.

So anyway, my point in bringing this up, is the fact that the JBMS editor for a while was a person that is NOT a Mesoamericanist should be a testament to the fact that the Maxwell Institute/FARMS is not just into this to preserve a certain viewpoint. On the other hand, I still maintain that they have a deference to credentialed experts and their opinions over the opinions of other people (or at least Lou Midgley does).

Ed Goble

I don't berate FARMS/MI. I am a financial supporter and a former contributor. I am one of its biggest fans.

On the topic of the Sorenson heresy, I simply disagree with its editorial philosophy as to that. Nothing more than that. And, yes, academic journals -- especially from religious institutions -- have particular philosophies that one can easily detect. Such as in Evangelical Review, it is easy to detect that its editors favor the heresy known as biblical inerrancy. And so it is with FARMS Review and Sorenson's heresy about the two Cumorahs. I also don't think that questioning Sorenson's views is the same thing as being rude to anybody or challenging the Kingdom of God on Earth. Certainly, it shouldn't characterize me as an unethical attorney. Really now.

The two Cumorahs theory. The one the Ensign edited out of Sorenson's draft, it seems. I've been on record as saying that I don't take exception to the view that Book of Mormon events could have taken place in Mesoamerica.

Please be courteous with your words. Applying heresy to someone who is a respected member of their religion is inflammatory.

[Anijen]

I had a chance to visit the two largest mound in the United States last year. Some on these boards know of my interests in this culture. I looked up some of my notes from visiting Cahokia and Poverty Point last year and here is some of the things I noted. My conclusions are based on quotes I had directly from the site managers (professional archeologist some whom have ran these sites for over fifteen years).

Poverty Point culture seems to not have had any contact with the Olmec. I asked about connections with the Olmec because Poverty Point predate the Mayans. There are no typical Olmec artifacts or trade goods that could tie them together. The figurines here do not resemble the Olmec types in lacking the detail and the down-turned mouth. The Poverty Point figurines also lack arms and legs (although two figurines do represent folded arms). The Olmec culture traded in jade and obsidian and these materials are completely missing at Poverty Point. The Olmec had well developed pottery while Poverty Point pottery was very undeveloped and crude with no similarity in design. I have pulled up Olmec artifacts on the internet and see really no resemblance that would be noteworthy. Of course, every highly developed culture will have some similarity in shape and style of some objects but usually this is coincidentally the same thought processes that people share.

On another point of population, it does appear that there could have been between 1,000 and 1,500 people at the Poverty Point center during the high point of the period probably beginning around 1300 B.C. It really depends on the archaeologist you talk to. Some estimate only a few hundred while others thousands. Nearly all now are getting away from the lower estimates, but none go over the number of 2500. The site is huge and the mound build up is considerable. It is my estimate that Poverty Point had a population of about 1500 maybe a few hundred more at its peak. They would have needed to draw from a good sized population to construct the vast earthworks there. Mound A consists of nearly 300,000 cubic meters of earth and appears to have been built very quickly (Kidder et al 2009). The reason I give a higher estimate of 1500 to perhaps 2000 because although Poverty Point is non agricultural it was located in an ecosystem that may have allowed them to stay in one place longer. They built the site on high ground overlooking a massive floodplain environment that would have consisted of many back water ponds and lakes located between them and the Mississippi River at that time. I really think that the environment was rich enough to support them year around if also all the smaller sites located within a ten mile area were procurement camps supporting the large central complex. The sight manager of Poverty Point Dennis LaBatt agrees with this assessment.

Skeptic-theist suggested a possible connection between Poverty Point and the Olmec in a recent paper. I have read that paper and it is well done! I commend Ed, and Tyler for their work on it. I acknowledge here that livy111 and myself are of the same conclusions. Although we both find the Adena and Hopewell tradition facinating, we are not yet convinced of any connection thus far. Early studies (James Ford/Clarence Webb 1956) cited a possible connection with the Olmec, but only because of the time period and complex earthworks. However, no items have ever been recovered that would support such a connection. John Clark, has written about the units of measurement at Poverty Point resembling the Maya, but we have to remember that Poverty Point predate the Maya.

Also consider the fact that no minerals are native to the valley floor at Poverty Point, so besides not just accounting for the artifacts that have been found one has to consider the trade extensive, I believe we all are in agreement here. No doubt that the Mississippi Valley water ways attributed to their moving a lot of material around and again in large quantities.

Some of the best material I have read on Poverty Point I would encourage anyone interested to read is Jon Gibson's "The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point, A Place of the Rings". Right now Tristram Kidder and Anthony Ortman are working on a research project that may shed light on the social organization and the use of the mounds. I am looking forward to meeting with some of these guys next summer.

The only iron known to come from prehistoric mounds is cold-hammered meteoric iron.

Not quite true, Anijen.

In fact, quite some time ago, a piece of well-crafted hematite (a plumb-bob perhaps) was found among the nested octagons of Poverty Point, Louisiana, which is considered the most impressive archaic site in ancient North America (Michael Coe,

[facie ad faciem]

I had a chance to visit the two largest mound in the United States last year. Some on these boards know of my interests in this culture. I looked up some of my notes from visiting Cahokia and Poverty Point last year and here is some of the things I noted. My conclusions are based on quotes I had directly from the site managers (professional archeologist some whom have ran these sites for over fifteen years).

Anijen -

You weren't tagging along with John Clark, himself, were you? (He made the same rounds to Cahokia and Poverty Point last April.)

[BCSpace]

It is not correct or accurate to say as you do that the two Cumorah theory (that the final battlefield was somewhere in Mesoamerica and that the plates were afterward carried to and buried in the New York hill) was not included after editing. The words "two-Cumorah theory" were not included in the printed text, but the theory is right there in the published version if you examine the reference.

Have to agree. A two-Cumorah theory is in the article whether it's specifically named or not. If one's theory has a Mesoamerican last battle and a New York Cumorah where JS found the plates, then one has a two-Cumorah theory. Considering the possible size of the area as indicated by travel times etc., I'd have to say that any LGT that is not northeastern U.S. is a two-Cumorah theory. It does not matter if Moroni walked there as a living man or a resurrected being or there was a tunnel or the Lord or an angel transfered the plates, etc.

[SkepticTheist]

Anijen,

Just to clarify, I didn't send you a paper (Tyler, just so you know, I haven't given out the goods). I sent you some quotes that are some that we may use in the paper that you had asked to see.

I don't know if Tyler may have sent you what had already done on it privately.

Ed

I had a chance to visit the two largest mound in the United States last year. Some on these boards know of my interests in this culture. I looked up some of my notes from visiting Cahokia and Poverty Point last year and here is some of the things I noted. My conclusions are based on quotes I had directly from the site managers (professional archeologist some whom have ran these sites for over fifteen years).

Poverty Point culture seems to not have had any contact with the Olmec. I asked about connections with the Olmec because Poverty Point predate the Mayans. There are no typical Olmec artifacts or trade goods that could tie them together. The figurines here do not resemble the Olmec types in lacking the detail and the down-turned mouth. The Poverty Point figurines also lack arms and legs (although two figurines do represent folded arms). The Olmec culture traded in jade and obsidian and these materials are completely missing at Poverty Point. The Olmec had well developed pottery while Poverty Point pottery was very undeveloped and crude with no similarity in design. I have pulled up Olmec artifacts on the internet and see really no resemblance that would be noteworthy. Of course, every highly developed culture will have some similarity in shape and style of some objects but usually this is coincidentally the same thought processes that people share.

On another point of population, it does appear that there could have been between 1,000 and 1,500 people at the Poverty Point center during the high point of the period probably beginning around 1300 B.C. It really depends on the archaeologist you talk to. Some estimate only a few hundred while others thousands. Nearly all now are getting away from the lower estimates, but none go over the number of 2500. The site is huge and the mound build up is considerable. It is my estimate that Poverty Point had a population of about 1500 maybe a few hundred more at its peak. They would have needed to draw from a good sized population to construct the vast earthworks there. Mound A consists of nearly 300,000 cubic meters of earth and appears to have been built very quickly (Kidder et al 2009). The reason I give a higher estimate of 1500 to perhaps 2000 because although Poverty Point is non agricultural it was located in an ecosystem that may have allowed them to stay in one place longer. They built the site on high ground overlooking a massive floodplain environment that would have consisted of many back water ponds and lakes located between them and the Mississippi River at that time. I really think that the environment was rich enough to support them year around if also all the smaller sites located within a ten mile area were procurement camps supporting the large central complex. The sight manager of Poverty Point Dennis LaBatt agrees with this assessment.

Skeptic-theist suggested a possible connection between Poverty Point and the Olmec in a recent paper. I have read that paper and it is well done! I commend Ed, and Tyler for their work on it. I acknowledge here that livy111 and myself are of the same conclusions. Although we both find the Adena and Hopewell tradition facinating, we are not yet convinced of any connection thus far. Early studies (James Ford/Clarence Webb 1956) cited a possible connection with the Olmec, but only because of the time period and complex earthworks. However, no items have ever been recovered that would support such a connection. John Clark, has written about the units of measurement at Poverty Point resembling the Maya, but we have to remember that Poverty Point predate the Maya.

Also consider the fact that no minerals are native to the valley floor at Poverty Point, so besides not just accounting for the artifacts that have been found one has to consider the trade extensive, I believe we all are in agreement here. No doubt that the Mississippi Valley water ways attributed to their moving a lot of material around and again in large quantities.

Some of the best material I have read on Poverty Point I would encourage anyone interested to read is Jon Gibson's "The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point, A Place of the Rings". Right now Tristram Kidder and Anthony Ortman are working on a research project that may shed light on the social organization and the use of the mounds. I am looking forward to meeting with some of these guys next summer.

Yes I knew of this and forgot about it when I wrote that. I have contacted a few of my friends about this but they have yet to answer my questions. Thus far only that one piece has been found so if anything it is an anomaly yet still there it is and has implications.

I hoped that I was objective in reporting these findings of mine. I am a subscriber to Mesoamerica but have no problem looking at any evidence or support for the Great Lakes model. I am at this point persuaded by Mesoamerica much more than any other setting which includes the location of the hill Cumorah.

Anijen

[Anijen]

Anijen -

You weren't tagging along with John Clark, himself, were you? (He made the same rounds to Cahokia and Poverty Point last April.)

No i didn't that would have been cool. I was there in December. My son was married in Tennessee and we made it to these two sites the long way around Cahokia was actually right on the way but we had to diverge more for PP.

[SkepticTheist]

I already understand that you are persuaded more by the Mesoamerican theory. From my standpoint, I'm not so much into knowing what people have been persuaded to think. I'm more interested in knowing if a plausible case can be made for my setting, not whether you agree with it. I already understand that your ideology is one that is based to a large degree on what people have tried to cast doubt on about the NY Cumorah. But again, I'm not interested in what you doubt so much as if you can tell me objectively that my arguments create plausibility for those that believe in my setting. I want something that bolsters faith for that theory, since everyone seems to want to tear down the NY cumorah for their favored settings. If the roles were reversed, people would be looking for reasons for why it can be cumorah. That is what I'm about. I already know that I can't "convert" you to mine. I am into this for defense of the plausibility of mine, not conversion of you to mine. Not to tear down yours, just to create plausibility for mine. People seem to be fine with tearing down the NY Cumorah without regard for the faith of those who believe in it. You have to wonder what it is that makes them think that in order to create plausibility for their own setting, that they have to be so focused on trying to debunk this one. That isn't very rational. One may ask, as apologists, are you more into preserving faith, or are you more into converting people to your own theory? Your own theory is already popular. Does it hurt for people to disbelieve yours and have faith in something that they have always believed naively? What if plausibility can be built for what they have taken for granted? Isn't that worth anything?

If you believe that your setting is more in line with how you see the archaeology, then more power to you. Build your case for the plausibility of the book of Mormon on your own favored setting then. And leave the rest of us to believe in our candidate, and let us figure out how to defend it. The NY Cumorah plausibility really has nothing to do with the plausibility of other cumorah candidates. I would suggest people focus on their own and leave this one alone, and let people like me build our case for it. I can't see how it threatens yours. Its bad enough that the Book of Mormon is threatened by Anti-Mormons. That is where your focus should be. Not on tearing down what you don't believe, that other faithful LDS do believe in. That is counterproductive to faith in general.

I'm not into this as if its a contest of who can outdo who for their Cumorah. I'm into this for building faith for those who believe in NY Cumorah. Mesoamericanists sometimes have no regard sometimes for the faith of those who believe in it, and act like they are threatened by the existence of it as a cumorah candidate, and have to compulsively tear it down. Besides, if we are talking about lack of evidence for the book of Mormon in general, Mesoamericanists never seem to have issues with that, and are willing to keep on making arguments for its plausibility, in spite of its problems. Well, I already know about archaeological problems at the NY Cumorah. Since I'm an apologist for that site, it should be understood that I am unfazed by how you think it is not it, or why you think it can't be it. I am into this for how a case can be made for it. So why should you guys be so intent to tear it down? It doesn't hurt to have more than one option out there that people can believe in, so let us believe.

Ed

I had a chance to visit the two largest mound in the United States last year. Some on these boards know of my interests in this culture. I looked up some of my notes from visiting Cahokia and Poverty Point last year and here is some of the things I noted. My conclusions are based on quotes I had directly from the site managers (professional archeologist some whom have ran these sites for over fifteen years).

Poverty Point culture seems to not have had any contact with the Olmec. I asked about connections with the Olmec because Poverty Point predate the Mayans. There are no typical Olmec artifacts or trade goods that could tie them together. The figurines here do not resemble the Olmec types in lacking the detail and the down-turned mouth. The Poverty Point figurines also lack arms and legs (although two figurines do represent folded arms). The Olmec culture traded in jade and obsidian and these materials are completely missing at Poverty Point. The Olmec had well developed pottery while Poverty Point pottery was very undeveloped and crude with no similarity in design. I have pulled up Olmec artifacts on the internet and see really no resemblance that would be noteworthy. Of course, every highly developed culture will have some similarity in shape and style of some objects but usually this is coincidentally the same thought processes that people share.

On another point of population, it does appear that there could have been between 1,000 and 1,500 people at the Poverty Point center during the high point of the period probably beginning around 1300 B.C. It really depends on the archaeologist you talk to. Some estimate only a few hundred while others thousands. Nearly all now are getting away from the lower estimates, but none go over the number of 2500. The site is huge and the mound build up is considerable. It is my estimate that Poverty Point had a population of about 1500 maybe a few hundred more at its peak. They would have needed to draw from a good sized population to construct the vast earthworks there. Mound A consists of nearly 300,000 cubic meters of earth and appears to have been built very quickly (Kidder et al 2009). The reason I give a higher estimate of 1500 to perhaps 2000 because although Poverty Point is non agricultural it was located in an ecosystem that may have allowed them to stay in one place longer. They built the site on high ground overlooking a massive floodplain environment that would have consisted of many back water ponds and lakes located between them and the Mississippi River at that time. I really think that the environment was rich enough to support them year around if also all the smaller sites located within a ten mile area were procurement camps supporting the large central complex. The sight manager of Poverty Point Dennis LaBatt agrees with this assessment.

Skeptic-theist suggested a possible connection between Poverty Point and the Olmec in a recent paper. I have read that paper and it is well done! I commend Ed, and Tyler for their work on it. I acknowledge here that livy111 and myself are of the same conclusions. Although we both find the Adena and Hopewell tradition facinating, we are not yet convinced of any connection thus far. Early studies (James Ford/Clarence Webb 1956) cited a possible connection with the Olmec, but only because of the time period and complex earthworks. However, no items have ever been recovered that would support such a connection. John Clark, has written about the units of measurement at Poverty Point resembling the Maya, but we have to remember that Poverty Point predate the Maya.

Also consider the fact that no minerals are native to the valley floor at Poverty Point, so besides not just accounting for the artifacts that have been found one has to consider the trade extensive, I believe we all are in agreement here. No doubt that the Mississippi Valley water ways attributed to their moving a lot of material around and again in large quantities.

Some of the best material I have read on Poverty Point I would encourage anyone interested to read is Jon Gibson's "The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point, A Place of the Rings". Right now Tristram Kidder and Anthony Ortman are working on a research project that may shed light on the social organization and the use of the mounds. I am looking forward to meeting with some of these guys next summer.

Yes I knew of this and forgot about it when I wrote that. I have contacted a few of my friends about this but they have yet to answer my questions. Thus far only that one piece has been found so if anything it is an anomaly yet still there it is and has implications.

I hoped that I was objective in reporting these findings of mine. I am a subscriber to Mesoamerica but have no problem looking at any evidence or support for the Great Lakes model. I am at this point persuaded by Mesoamerica much more than any other setting which includes the location of the hill Cumorah.

Anijen

[Anijen]

I already understand that your ideology is one that is based to a large degree on what people have tried to cast doubt on about the NY Cumorah.

You would be wrong here. My views are largely based on archeological/anthropological evidence. My belief in the Book of Mormon is based on faith confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost. If I based my "ideology" on what people have thought then I would follow a hemispheric model because that is what most of the church thinks (I do not claim knowledge of what most of the members think but I assume that is the theory they hold onto).

if you can tell me objectively that my arguments create plausibility for those that believe in my setting.

Yes I believe that theory has some plausibility. I specifically think it is strongest argued from your point of view from the "northward" readings and that we cannot say with certainty how far north they went. Although when compared to a Mesoamerican setting I believe it is weak when considering archeological evidence. Also comparing the two theories, I think it is a toss up when using past quotes of church leaders.

I want something that bolsters faith for that theory, since everyone seems to want to tear down the NY cumorah for their favored settings.

Sorry Ed, I do not mean to tear down any theory. It is incumbent upon scholars to critic bad scholarship. When May and Meldrum use proven forgeries then yes it the job of experts to say as much. I do not place me as a scholar however I am currently in that field of study and all my spare time outside my church and family duties are in pursuing my goal in expertise in this area. I realize this thread is in search of those experts whom support your ideas. I myself have contributed to some of them. I have reevaluated my population figures to a higher number due to yours research but still find them inline with what the scholars agree on but too low from what is required from the text of the Book of Mormon.

If the roles were reversed,

I would expect the same expectations from the experts.

I already know that I can't "convert" you to mine.

We both are converted to what counts. We are not after converts. We are already together in that view. We are just after more facts on the details that is all.

There is a lot of talk on tearing down and I feel Ed you have taken this wrong. I recognize your passion and admire that. Every nonfiction book will be evaluated, facts that are stretched such as May and Meldrum presents will come out sooner or later but eventually it will come out. All I am trying to convey is that you will always be held to scrutiny if you write any type of book. I also know that you feel you are still in the shadow of May and Meldrum and perhaps have been lumped in with them which is unfortunate for you. Every mesoamericanist who has written on that setting has also been criticized, it is unavoidable. We are not tearing you down but we all have our critics and that is very much unavoidable.

[SkepticTheist]

I think I'll just let this thread die now.

Ed

[LDS Guy 1986]

I think I'll just let this thread die now.

Ed

Can't you ask a moderator to lock it?