BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I have been watching a series of presentation by archaeologist Neil Steede, who is a member of the Community of Christ. He has started me reconsidering the Meso-American model once again. He postulates that Yaxchilan, Mexico is ancient Zarahemla, and gives a series of good reasons why. For all the "smartest guys in the room"... Would you concur with Mr. Steede conclusion? Do you have any information that you believe rules out the Yaxchilan = Zarahemla Theory?Thank in advance.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I have been watching a series of presentation by archaeologist Neil Steede, who is a member of the Community of Christ. He has started me reconsidering the Meso-American model once again. He postulates that Yaxchilan, Mexico is ancient Zarahemla, and gives a series of good reasons why. For all the "smartest guys in the room"... Would you concur with Mr. Steede conclusion? Do you have any information that you believe rules out the Yaxchilan = Zarahemla Theory?Thank in advance.I think that there are many possible places for Zarahemla, the biggest thing with BoM geography is being able to decipher the ancient runes of the Meso-Americans. Of course seeing that these runes have no reference to help translate them we are stuck with only the Spanish names of cities. Hopefully one day we will find the Rosetta Stone of Meso-America and finally be able to translate the ancient runes and find out the proper native names for these ancient cities! Until then we can only speculate and make our best guess based on the limited records kept in the Book of Mormon.
Brant Gardner Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I would need a lot more information to be able to argue against (or for) any of Steede's proposals. However, I am suspicious of the correlation for two reasons. There are very good reasons to see the Grijalva as Sidon, not the Usumucinta (where Yaxchilan is located). Larry Poulsen's analysis suggests that only the Grijalva fits the text. Secondly, Yaxchilan is primarily an early to late Classic site. It did have origins in the Preclassic (corresponding to Book of Mormon times) but not much is known for that time. I suspect that Steede is making correlations based on the later site.I checked some of places and topics for Steede's publications. By their nature, they don't suggest a scholar. He is listed as an independent, and it seems that he is linked to some very tenuous theories. Again, without specifics I can't say how well he makes his case, but from the other things I found, I would suggest a heavy dose of caution. There are much better scholars of Mesoamerica, and even many better versed on the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 12, 2011 Author Posted March 12, 2011 I would need a lot more information to be able to argue against (or for) any of Steede's proposals. However, I am suspicious of the correlation for two reasons. There are very good reasons to see the Grijalva as Sidon, not the Usumucinta (where Yaxchilan is located). Larry Poulsen's analysis suggests that only the Grijalva fits the text. Secondly, Yaxchilan is primarily an early to late Classic site. It did have origins in the Preclassic (corresponding to Book of Mormon times) but not much is known for that time. I suspect that Steede is making correlations based on the later site.I checked some of places and topics for Steede's publications. By their nature, they don't suggest a scholar. He is listed as an independent, and it seems that he is linked to some very tenuous theories. Again, without specifics I can't say how well he makes his case, but from the other things I found, I would suggest a heavy dose of caution. There are much better scholars of Mesoamerica, and even many better versed on the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.Is it possible that not much is know because, if it is Zarahemla, it was first a Mulekite city, and only later the Nephites came?I could try to make some copies of the DVD's for those who are interested. He goes very in depth into his reasoning, and I think it is worth anyone's time to consider his thoughts. Because, really, aren't all Book of Mormon scholars making educated guesses?
Brant Gardner Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Is it possible that not much is know because, if it is Zarahemla, it was first a Mulekite city, and only later the Nephites came?Certainly not for that reason. The Nephites came to a functioning city. There is no indication that they initiated a great surge in building. Any site that qualifies for Zarahemla has to have a history that dates to approximately maybe 250 BC. It would be a good indicator if there were information of a cultural confluences of different peoples around 200 BC. Nephites had moved north from Zarahemla by Christ's death. At that point, Bountiful becomes a greater Nephite focus.I could try to make some copies of the DVD's for those who are interested. He goes very in depth into his reasoning, and I think it is worth anyone's time to consider his thoughts. Because, really, aren't all Book of Mormon scholars making educated guesses?The difference is in the nature of the "educated" in "educated guesses." Unfortunately, what can be seen of his work strongly suggests that he is one of the extremists who are not nearly as careful with the data as is required. We still have the very big problem of the wrong river. I know that there are some who still support the Usumacinta as the Sidon, but there are fewer and fewer because of the nature of the data. Again, Poulsen's analysis suggests that the textual requirements exclude the Uscumacinta and require the Grijalva.As you review those DVDs, here is something to look for. How much scholarship does he interact with? If you hear only his side of the argument, I would urge caution.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 12, 2011 Author Posted March 12, 2011 Certainly not for that reason. The Nephites came to a functioning city. There is no indication that they initiated a great surge in building. Any site that qualifies for Zarahemla has to have a history that dates to approximately maybe 250 BC. It would be a good indicator if there were information of a cultural confluences of different peoples around 200 BC. Nephites had moved north from Zarahemla by Christ's death. At that point, Bountiful becomes a greater Nephite focus.The difference is in the nature of the "educated" in "educated guesses." Unfortunately, what can be seen of his work strongly suggests that he is one of the extremists who are not nearly as careful with the data as is required. We still have the very big problem of the wrong river. I know that there are some who still support the Usumacinta as the Sidon, but there are fewer and fewer because of the nature of the data. Again, Poulsen's analysis suggests that the textual requirements exclude the Uscumacinta and require the Grijalva.As you review those DVDs, here is something to look for. How much scholarship does he interact with? If you hear only his side of the argument, I would urge caution.I'll take that as a "Not Interested" I will be sure to look a Poulsen's work.
Sevenbak Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 Certainly not for that reason. The Nephites came to a functioning city. There is no indication that they initiated a great surge in building...Except that Zarahemla was burned by fire at the coming of Christ, and rebuilt by the Nephites.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 13, 2011 Author Posted March 13, 2011 Can you post it on Youtube?Good question. I will work on it this week and see what happens.
Tapir Whisperer Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 I think that there are many possible places for Zarahemla, the biggest thing with BoM geography is being able to decipher the ancient runes of the Meso-Americans. Of course seeing that these runes have no reference to help translate them we are stuck with only the Spanish names of cities. Hopefully one day we will find the Rosetta Stone of Meso-America and finally be able to translate the ancient runes and find out the proper native names for these ancient cities! Until then we can only speculate and make our best guess based on the limited records kept in the Book of Mormon.From what I have been able to find about Yaxchilan, the site is particularly known for its well-preserved sculptured stone lintels and stone stelae which contain numerous hieroglyphic texts describing the dynastic history and culture of the city.Are their some "runes" in Yaxchilan that scholars are unable to decipher? Also, it appears the ancient name for the city was Pa' Chan. "Yaxchilan" means "green stones" in Maya.
Anijen Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 From what I have been able to find about Yaxchilan, the site is particularly known for its well-preserved sculptured stone lintels and stone stelae which contain numerous hieroglyphic texts describing the dynastic history and culture of the city.Are their some "runes" in Yaxchilan that scholars are unable to decipher? Also, it appears the ancient name for the city was Pa' Chan. "Yaxchilan" means "green stones" in Maya.Welcome Tapir Whisperer. I like to study the glyphs off and on and have become okay with them. I still study them now only about once every other week.Here is a good sight which will give you some detailed drawings of the glyphs you can find at Yaxchilan, and many other places Just scroll down and click on Yaxchilan, Click on the lintel in the left column you would like to see then click on the image for a larger view. What is really neat is you can move the scroll bar and see the drawing in detail or the photo of the actual writing. I think you will like it. It will also give the interpretation of the glyph at the bottom.Anijen
Tapir Whisperer Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Welcome Tapir Whisperer. I like to study the glyphs off and on and have become okay with them. Here is a good sight which will give you some detailed drawings of the glyphs you can find at Yaxchilan, and many other places Just scroll down and click on Yaxchilan.AnijenThank you very much. That is a FANTASTIC website. From the website it appears that most of the glyphs have been translated. Are there some glyphs that you are aware of that cannot be translated? Do you feel the translation of the glyphs add credence to the theory that Yaxchilan was Zarahemla?I am intersted in this theory, but I do not know anything about Yaxchilan (outside of looking at the findings on the website you gave).
Anijen Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Thank you very much. That is a FANTASTIC website. From the website it appears that most of the glyphs have been translated. Are there some glyphs that you are aware of that cannot be translated? Do you feel the translation of the glyphs add credence to the theory that Yaxchilan was Zarahemla?I am intersted in this theory, but I do not know anything about Yaxchilan (outside of looking at the findings on the website you gave).Yes there are glyphs that have not been translated but about 85% now have. The Olmec glyphs have not been translated as yet. No, I do not think Yaxchilan was Zarahemla, because of the reasons Brant has suggested. I believe the Grijalva is the best possible guess for the river Sidon so that would rule out Yaxchilan. Check out this site for what I believe to be the most up to date info on geography (Lawrence Poulsens site).
Tapir Whisperer Posted March 16, 2011 Posted March 16, 2011 Yes there are glyphs that have not been translated but about 85% now have. The Olmec glyphs have not been translated as yet. No, I do not think Yaxchilan was Zarahemla, because of the reasons Brant has suggested. I believe the Grijalva is the best possible guess for the river Sidon so that would rule out Yaxchilan. Check out this site for what I believe to be the most up to date info on geography (Lawrence Poulsens site).Thanks. Another great site. Lots of information that I wasn't aware of.
Tango Posted March 17, 2011 Posted March 17, 2011 Practicing human sacrifice smack-dab during the hay-day of 4-Nephi, good try--fail
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.