What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

[Ariarates]

I didn't refuse to answer your question on peer review, I indicated why it was the wrong question. You are making assumptions about what gets published that are incorrect and therefore you would get the wrong impression from any direct answer to your question

I think the number of publications is a perfectly legitimate (though admittedly imperfect) way to gauge the acceptance of a certain idea in mainstream science (which is what we are discussing). It is also a good indicator of the standards by which the research has been conducted. I take it you disagree?

If you think that there are non-LDS journals who would be interested in publishing a positive article on the Book of Mormon, I would really be interested in knowing which ones and why you think so.

I think any journal would be interested in publishing a well-researched article about the BoM that has a basis in facts and evidence. "Positive" is not a relevant criterion in scientific publications. Lose the persecution complex and get published already.

As for your question about my book, I told you what it contained and you doubted my statement. You still doubt me. I have read it. You haven't. i would think at some point empericism ought to dictate some of your conclusions.

You submitted this particular work into evidence and now you refuse to merely confirm that it is indeed the kind of evidence you implied? And based on that you expect me to buy and read a 6-volume publication?

Whatever.

[cdowis]

"Patience is a virtue."

Let's see if our patience is rewarded.

I never said "ancient names". I know that almost nothing is known of the ancient languages of Meso-America, ergo the original names remain unknown. What I was referring to is this attempt to connect BoM names to known languages, and at the same time trying to make Hebrew-Egyptian surface in Pre-Columbian America.

Thus my objection that any asserted place names can reasonably be used as evidence of BoM origins. Your facile reference proves the point. "Moroni" and "Alma" are two other cases where a modern name exists but has no connection to the BoM.

I think I mentioned three specific examples above-- Paanchi, Pahoran, (Dr. Albright noted that they are authentic ancient Egyptian names) and sheum. The latter is especially interesting. I note with interest that you have not responded but I am patient.

[cdowis]

I think any journal would be interested in publishing a well-researched article about the BoM that has a basis in facts and evidence.

You "think"?

Go to a journal. Tell them that there is a book which purports to be a history of ancient America, and it was delivered by an angel, and translated from gold plates by a prophet. Would they be interested in publishing an article by a credentialed scholar/archeologist showing a correlation between the geography and cities in this book and physical geography and ancient cities in mesoamerica.

Get back to us which journals would be willing to look at such an article and do a peer-review. Those scholars who do the peer review need to have extensive knowledge of the text of this book.

If not BOM geography, what else? A study of BOM names compared to middle eastern names? The journey of Lehi accross the Saudi Arabian peninsula and the physical geography indications of his journey.

Don't just tell us what you "think" -- go forth and tell us what you actually find.

Again, peer review requires that the reviewers are knowledgeable of the topic, in this case, the text of the BOM. Give us some names of those who have such knowledge and willing to conduct such a peer review.

[Bill Hamblin]

You submitted this particular work into evidence and now you refuse to merely confirm that it is indeed the kind of evidence you implied? And based on that you expect me to buy and read a 6-volume publication?

Whatever.

And that tells us about all we need to know about Ariarates. Alas, unwillingness to examine the evidence and analysis, while loudly proclaiming one's own superior knowledge and intelligence, is not intellectually honest, rigorous, open minded, nor impressive.

Feel free to put that in your signature file.

By the way, would you consider Oxford University Press an unbiased, peer reviewed, non-Mormon publisher?

My link

My link

My link

See also, for example, Sorenson's article in

My link

How about John Lundquist's appendix on "Biblical Seafaring and the Book of Mormon" in Raphael Patai's The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times (1999), 171-6

Or is Princeton University Press now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Church that no longer does peer review?

I expect to see goalposts moving shortly.

[Ariarates]

And that tells us about all we need to know about Ariarates. Alas, unwillingness to examine the evidence and analysis, while loudly proclaiming one's own superior knowledge and intelligence, is not intellectually honest, rigorous, open minded, nor impressive.

By the way, would you consider Oxford University Press an unbiased, peer reviewed, non-Mormon publisher? (...) Or is Princeton University Press now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Church that no longer does peer review?

Thank you, I'll start reading the materials you provided. See how easy it is? I ask for a reference, you give it to me straight and all are edified

I expect to see goalposts moving shortly.

Good thinking. So before I start reading, let's reiterate where the goalposts are according to Brant: "However, when we get to the kinds of evidence that is used to correlate texts and archaeological artifacts, it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence" (see post no. 155). So we are looking for evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts. This evidence is to be of the same kind that is used to correlate non-LDS texts to archaeological artifacts. As a measure of this, we use publication in a peer-reviewed, non-LDS scientific/scholarly publication. My contention is that there is no such evidence.

Are we agreed on the goalposts?

Then let's see if your references prove me wrong.

[Bill Hamblin]

Thank you, I'll start reading the materials you provided. See how easy it is? I ask for a reference, you give it to me straight and all are edified

Good thinking. So before I start reading, let's reiterate where the goalposts are according to Brant: "However, when we get to the kinds of evidence that is used to correlate texts and archaeological artifacts, it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence" (see post no. 155). So we are looking for evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts. This evidence is to be of the same kind that is used to correlate non-LDS texts to archaeological artifacts. As a measure of this, we use publication in a peer-reviewed, non-LDS scientific/scholarly publication. My contention is that there is no such evidence.

Are we agreed on the goalposts?

Then let's see if your references prove me wrong.

If those are the goalposts then we have lots of things:

Cities

Pottery

Agriculture

Warfare

Trade

Temples

Writing

Inscriptions on stone

Cities in the early first millennium BC

etc. etc. John Clark has a list of items and their correlations.

How would you prove or disprove that a particular city is or is not a BOM-related city? How could you tell a Nephite pot from a Lamanite or Maya or Olmec pot? This is a silly argument that has had numerous responses. You don't understand the limits of archaeology nor the epistemology of trying to understanding the past.

[Anijen]

The "Forts" of the Hopewell were thought to be defensive a century ago, but as archaeologists have learned more about the Hopewell, the extremely small population sizes, and lack of evidence for wars (unlike earlier and later cultures where there is plenty of evidence of war), the evidence tells another story. Even in the BOM, Chief Captain Moroni fortified large cities which held tens of thousands of people. But, among the Hopewell, there were no cities that even came close to this size and only amounted to small villages at best. Inside the Hopewell forts there is a lack of evidence of any habitation. In the forts I have studied, the only evidence of habitation is *outside* of these so-called forts, which most likely happened during construction and once they were finished, the people dispersed again to their small villages and hamlets.

"During The Book of Mormon period, the Ohio “Hopewell settlements were small villages or hamlets of a few rectangular homes made of posts with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs”

These small villages were generally made up of immediate and extended families that would either be sedentary, or be a seasonal camp, always moving to a new location.

While some of these ancient Indians would congregate into a small village, there were many households that were “dispersed over the landscape rather than concentrated within villages.”

“Overall, the Ohio Hopewell appear to be compiled of small groups most likely extended families, who practiced early horticulture and lived in small dispersed communities.”

In the Illinois Valley, which many scholars believe to be the origin of the Hopewell, we find a similar situation. Their “villages could not have held more than a hundred people.” And their living quarters were “rectangular or oval shaped;” and “were built of wooden posts and were probably covered with mats or with sheets of bark, like the wigwams of contact period Indians.”

They also lived in “small, sedentary, one to three-household hamlets, rather than large villages” just as in Ohio and elsewhere." http://www.bmaf.org/node/394

So we know that the Hopewell were a peaceful people, we know that there is no evidence of any major battle whatsoever among them (during BOM times), we know that the Hopewell did not even have cities to defend (as mentioned in the BOM), and we know that the Hopewell did not even come close to the populations mentioned in The Book of Mormon. I just don't see them matching BOM people. At least Nephites mentioned in the BOM.

This is a very astute response and one I have found to be in view with most archeologist whose expertise is on the Hopewell and Adena tradition. I say most because I am sure there are those who have opposing views but they would be in a minority. Every single archeologist I know and have corresponded with would agree with this assessment. I also notice that usually those (on this board) who claim a differnt view will cite the old books. I have two of the old ones and eleven of the more modern books on the Hopewell and all would support this view.

David Meltzer, probably one of the foremost experts on the Hopewell says this;

“Defensive enclosures were correspondingly rare in the southern states (possibly a further clue about migration patterns, or at least about when and where hostilities ceased along that march), and those that did occur both north and south were at best “inferior” militarily and possessed none of the “requisites for resisting an enemy and sustaining a practical defense.” ~David J. Meltzer in the introduction (pg. 47) of, Squire Ephraim G. and Edwin H. Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Washington D.C. Smithsonian Books 1998

Also you are correct on the copper chest plates being ceremonial (I am repeating this from an earlier post);

"Ether these plates were worn only on extraordinary occasions, or in such a manner that little or no friction was produced by the cords by which they were sustained or fashioned." Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Squires and Davis Pg.205

Meltzer also says;

Mexicans [Mayans] had the greater military skills (Pg. 47 of intro.)

I wonder if the final battle did start in Central America and migrated up to New York why did their military skills diminish so?

Just food for thought

Anijen

[paulpatter]

I think the number of publications is a perfectly legitimate (though admittedly imperfect) way to gauge the acceptance of a certain idea in mainstream science (which is what we are discussing). It is also a good indicator of the standards by which the research has been conducted. I take it you disagree?

I think any journal would be interested in publishing a well-researched article about the BoM that has a basis in facts and evidence. "Positive" is not a relevant criterion in scientific publications. Lose the persecution complex and get published already.

You submitted this particular work into evidence and now you refuse to merely confirm that it is indeed the kind of evidence you implied? And based on that you expect me to buy and read a 6-volume publication?

Whatever.

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim, repeatedly, that no "mainsteam" archaeologist accepts the BoM narrative. They add that no professional archaeological society will permit an LDS archaeologist to speak at their symposiums or publish in their journals. Question: Do we have support from any non-LDS professional archaeologists for the Book of Mormon? I would really like to prove the critics wrong.

[Kevin Christensen]

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim, repeatedly, that no "mainsteam" archaeologist accepts the BoM narrative. They add that no professional archaeological society will permit an LDS archaeologist to speak at their symposiums or publish in their journals. Question: Do we have support from any non-LDS professional archaeologists for the Book of Mormon? I would really like to prove the critics wrong.

This is not quite correct. Several mainstream archeologists are LDS. John Clark, for instance, is a recognized authority with numerous publications. As are Sorenson, Clark, Christenson, and others. Several LDS archeologists speak and publish on aspects of Mesoamerican archeology. Look at how Michael Coe praises the work of LDS archeologists in the PBS interview. What they do not do is publish overt Book of Mormon apologetic in their journals or permit at their conferences. And recall the uproar at the Joseph Smith Conference when John Clark discussed the Book of Mormon in relation to real archeology. Despite it being a BYU sponsored Conference on Joseph Smith, this sort of thing was considered in poor taste at an academic conference. Oddly, amid all the uproar amid what a few believing LDS said about their own faith, however, no one criticized Margaret Barker's comments, which were equally affirmative.

And we occasionally get non-LDS professional archeologists who support the Book of Mormon to the point of being baptized. Mark Wright has discussed the conversion of the husband and wife team in charge of work at Teotihuacán. Now that they are active LDS, they are no longer non-LDS professional archeologists, and therefore, cannot provide the necessary endorsement.

While the discovery of the two Mesoamerican Cylinder seals was reported in non-LDS journals, the S.E.H.A. comparison of their markings to those on the Anton transcript does not apparently count as actual evidence. Likewise, the discovery that the Bible mentions Mulek, the discovery of a seal bearing his name have been discussed in non-LDS journals. However, the connection with the Book of Mormon Mulek appears in an LDS journal.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=2&id=324

Does it count as evidence, or not?

If a tree falls in a forest, felled by non-LDS archeologists, and the LDS use wood from the tree to build a temple, does it make a sound in a non-LDS journal?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

This is not quite correct. Several mainstream archeologists are LDS. John Clark, for instance, is a recognized authority with numerous publications. As are Sorenson, Clark, Christenson, and others. Several LDS archeologists speak and publish on aspects of Mesoamerican archeology. Look at how Michael Coe praises the work of LDS archeologists in the PBS interview. What they do not do is publish overt Book of Mormon apologetic in their journals or permit at their conferences. And recall the uproar at the Joseph Smith Conference when John Clark discussed the Book of Mormon in relation to real archeology. Despite it being a BYU sponsored Conference on Joseph Smith, this sort of thing was considered in poor taste at an academic conference. Oddly, amid all the uproar amid what a few believing LDS said about their own faith, however, no one criticized Margaret Barker's comments, which were equally affirmative.

And we occasionally get non-LDS professional archeologists who support the Book of Mormon to the point of being baptized. Mark Wright has discussed the conversion of the husband and wife team in charge of work at Teotihuacán. Now that they are active LDS, they are no longer non-LDS professional archeologists, and therefore, cannot provide the necessary endorsement.

While the discovery of the two Mesoamerican Cylinder seals was reported in non-LDS journals, the S.E.H.A. comparison of their markings to those on the Anton transcript does not apparently count as actual evidence. Likewise, the discovery that the Bible mentions Mulek, the discovery of a seal bearing his name have been discussed in non-LDS journals. However, the connection with the Book of Mormon Mulek appears in an LDS journal.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=2&id=324

Does it count as evidence, or not?

If a tree falls in a forest, felled by non-LDS archeologists, and the LDS use wood from the tree to build a temple, does it make a sound in a non-LDS journal?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Right.

[Ariarates]

How would you prove or disprove that a particular city is or is not a BOM-related city? How could you tell a Nephite pot from a Lamanite or Maya or Olmec pot? This is a silly argument that has had numerous responses. You don't understand the limits of archaeology nor the epistemology of trying to understanding the past.

I see what you mean by moving goalposts. Am I to understand that you disagree with Brant’s assessment that there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts? You needn’t worry about my limited understanding – I outsourced that, remember? If a publication correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts and was peer-reviewed and published in/as a non-LDS publication, then I am just going to assume that the correlating was done properly.

Of course, if you are now saying that correlating the BoM text to archeaological artifacts is silly, then we are back to square one, which was my assertion that no such evidence exists. So which is it? I’d like to know before I spend a lot of time studying your references.

[Ariarates]

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim, repeatedly, that no "mainsteam" archaeologist accepts the BoM narrative. They add that no professional archaeological society will permit an LDS archaeologist to speak at their symposiums or publish in their journals. Question: Do we have support from any non-LDS professional archaeologists for the Book of Mormon? I would really like to prove the critics wrong.

Please note that, although you quote me, these are not exactly my claims. My concern is accepting the BoM's historicity, not accepting the narrative; also I know nothing about archeaeological societies and symposiums. That said, I am, of course, interested in the answer to your question.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, if you are now saying that correlating the BoM text to archeaological artifacts is silly, then we are back to square one, which was my assertion that no such evidence exists. So which is it? I’d like to know before I spend a lot of time studying your references.

Alas, you cannot know until and unless you "spend a lot of time studying." The fact that you are unwilling to do so means this discussion is pointless.

[Ariarates]

You "think"?

I do and I am not ashamed of it. You should try it sometime ;-)

Go to a journal. Tell them that there is a book which purports to be a history of ancient America, and it was delivered by an angel, and translated from gold plates by a prophet. Would they be interested in publishing an article by a credentialed scholar/archeologist showing a correlation between the geography and cities in this book and physical geography and ancient cities in mesoamerica.

Get back to us which journals would be willing to look at such an article and do a peer-review. Those scholars who do the peer review need to have extensive knowledge of the text of this book.

If not BOM geography, what else? A study of BOM names compared to middle eastern names? The journey of Lehi accross the Saudi Arabian peninsula and the physical geography indications of his journey.

I agree that you describe a particularly stupid way to go about it. But I respectfully suggest that there are other ways. You could, for example, approach a journal and tell them you have a text of undetermined provenance (you probably should display a balanced awareness of the different hypothesis regarding the BoM's origin in your introduction); you could explain that you have been labouring under the hypothesis that the text is ancient and that you have conducted research to test this hypothesis and that your research points to the conclusion that your hypothesis (that the text is ancient, not where the text came from and how) is more likely to be true than the other hypotheses. Peer review needn't be done by BoM experts but could very well be done by experts in the relevant research methods.

[Ariarates]

Alas, you cannot know until and unless you "spend a lot of time studying." The fact that you are unwilling to do so means this discussion is pointless.

Why can't you just answer my plain and simple questions?

[Questing Beast]

I think I mentioned three specific examples above-- Paanchi, Pahoran, (Dr. Albright noted that they are authentic ancient Egyptian names) and sheum. The latter is especially interesting. I note with interest that you have not responded but I am patient.

As the origin of the BoM "idea" and contents remains problematic, I don't think that the noticing of a few curious similarities with "Egyptian" names are of any important significance.

The purported 60 (90) days in which the main bulk of the BoM was "dictated" has been questioned successfully. The time of creation could have been much longer and have involved more than Joseph Smith. Egyptian antiquities was a very popular subject during that period.

As there is ample early 19th century American content in the BoM, the noticing of purportedly ancient parallels (problematic also, because of the very incomplete knowledge and understanding of Meso-American antiquities) is also not any sort of evidence of ancient origins: it is all a process of holding a conviction and going looking for corroboration (when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail).

When you no longer NEED the BoM to be an ancient history at all, then everything being argued goes away. And you can see the book clearly for what Occam's Razor says that it probably is. This applies to the Bible and any other "scripture" of any other religion: the works (sometimes clever, sometimes convincing) of men to teach dogma that will mold the behavior of men. That some men take this too far and use the dogma to exert control is to be lamented but expected....

[Bill Hamblin]

Why can't you just answer my plain and simple questions?

First, because your questions are not plain and simple, and the fact that you think they are is itself problematic. Second, because they have been answered, but you have consistently stated that you don't want to read the books where the answers are given. Go read Brant's commentary, to begin with.

There's a story of Socrates and a rich young Athenian. The young man came and said he wanted to learn philosophy from Socrates. Socrates took him to a pool of water and held him under until he almost drowned, then said: "When you want to learn philosophy as much as you want to breath, come back and I'll teach you."

[Ariarates]

First, because your questions are not plain and simple, and the fact that you think they are is itself problematic. Second, because they have been answered, but you have consistently stated that you don't want to read the books where the answers are given. Go read Brant's commentary, to begin with.

I beg to differ. My questions are plain and simple. Brant says there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts but refuses to even give a single reference. You gave a few references to support that assertion but also seem to say (but refuse to clarify whether I understand you correctly) that it is silly to try and correlate the BoM text to archeaological. And then you expect me to spend money on these books and take several hours out of my family time to investigate.... what? I have repeatedly indicated that I am willing to put in the effort within the framework of our discussion. Is it too much to ask that we agree on this framework first and that you answer my questions in a courteous and respectful manner?

[cinepro]

First, because your questions are not plain and simple, and the fact that you think they are is itself problematic. Second, because they have been answered, but you have consistently stated that you don't want to read the books where the answers are given. Go read Brant's commentary, to begin with.

There's a story of Socrates and a rich young Athenian. The young man came and said he wanted to learn philosophy from Socrates. Socrates took him to a pool of water and held him under until he almost drowned, then said: "When you want to learn philosophy as much as you want to breath, come back and I'll teach you."

If you're saying that in order to be convinced by apologetic evidences you have to want the Book of Mormon to be true as much as you want to breathe, I might just agree with you...

[cdowis]

I beg to differ. My questions are plain and simple. Brant says there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts but refuses to even give a single reference.

1. Human sacrifice during warfare.

2. Towers used in religious rites.

3. Concrete city in the land northward.

4. Sophisticated calendar and knowledge of astronomy.

Of course, these are all just a coincidence.

[Brant Gardner]

I beg to differ. My questions are plain and simple.

Let's try again. I will try to be more complete in my explanation. First, your questions are only "plain and simple" if you don't understand why the questions are both loaded and demonstrate general ignorance of archaeology.

I will begin with your assertion that " Brant says there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts." That is incorrect, and incorrect in such a way that it misrepresents what I said, and indicates that you don't understand the question you are asking. Artifacts don't do much. Devoid of texts, they tell you ab out material culture, but nothing about the language of the people who made them, or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people. William Dever suggests that there are some village remains in Israel that he believes represent early Israelites. However, the artifacts themselves don't say that. There is nothing that demonstrates a particular connection. The entire reasoning he gives is an argument as to why the correlate to the text.

One of the most important archaeological artifacts is pottery. Changes in pottery styles can tell a lot about changes over time, general time frames, and often whether or not there is a cultural infusion. Without texts, however, they don't tell you who made them.

So, when you ask for a tie between the Book of Mormon and artifacts, you are asking for something that no archaeologist can give you for any culture (without other serendipitous evidence, such as texts or historical ties to a location--again often relying on texts). That is the reason that none of the examples I have given deal with specific artifacts. It simply isn't the way archaeology works.

As for what archaeology can do with a text, it can be compared to see if the reconstructed historical trends (as argued on the basis of the artifacts as a group, rarely from a single artifact) matches the trends in the text. Those are precisely the types of evidences I suggested. So, no I am not answering the specific question you ask because it is a question that should not be asked of any reconstruction based on archaeology in the absence of texts. I did give you other types of arguments that are used in such cases, which you seem to studiously ignore in favor of repeating the same questions.

You (Dr. Hamblin) gave a few references to support that assertion but also seem to say (but refuse to clarify whether I understand you correctly) that it is silly to try and correlate the BoM text to archeaological.

Of course what Dr. Hamblin suggested is completely unrelated to your restatement. He gave you the kind of evidence that can be given for historical reconstructions based on archaeology, and told you that what you were asking for doesn't match what any archaeologist does. As he suggested, you might want to become a little better informed about archaeology as a science. It will improve the quality of your inquiries.

And then you expect me to spend money on these books and take several hours out of my family time to investigate.

There are quite a few ways to study these days that don't require spending a lot of money. None of them, however, relinquish the responsibility of spending time. Actual scholarship does not come in 1/2 sitcom storylines. Blustering that someone should spoon feed you instead of requiring that you learn requisite information does not substitute for learning. If you were actually serious about learning, your approach would be quite different than what you are demonstrating.

I have repeatedly indicated that I am willing to put in the effort within the framework of our discussion.

I have a hard time assessing what you mean. I have seen no willingness on your part to understand archaeology prior to demanding that it fit your conception of what it should do. That has nothing to do with Mormonism. If you are suggesting that you are willing to read and respond to posts, but not open a book, then there isn't much point to continuing the posts.

Is it too much to ask that we agree on this framework first and that you answer my questions in a courteous and respectful manner?

Courteous is always possible and should be the norm. As for "this framework," that is, unfortunately, part of the problem. I can't agree to your framing of the issue because it fundamentally misunderstands the methodologies of the social sciences that would be applied to the basic answer. If we can't even agree on secular scholarship, we have little chance of agreeing on something where you have clearly already taken a position.

So, if you would like to agree on a beginning framework, let's develop one that a secular archaeologist or ethnohistorian could accept and go from there.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let's try again. I will try to be more complete in my explanation. First, your questions are only "plain and simple" if you don't understand why the questions are both loaded and demonstrate general ignorance of archaeology.

I will begin with your assertion that " Brant says there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts." That is incorrect, and incorrect in such a way that it misrepresents what I said, and indicates that you don't understand the question you are asking. Artifacts don't do much. Devoid of texts, they tell you ab out material culture, but nothing about the language of the people who made them, or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people. William Dever suggests that there are some village remains in Israel that he believes represent early Israelites. However, the artifacts themselves don't say that. There is nothing that demonstrates a particular connection. The entire reasoning he gives is an argument as to why the correlate to the text.

One of the most important archaeological artifacts is pottery. Changes in pottery styles can tell a lot about changes over time, general time frames, and often whether or not there is a cultural infusion. Without texts, however, they don't tell you who made them.

So, when you ask for a tie between the Book of Mormon and artifacts, you are asking for something that no archaeologist can give you for any culture (without other serendipitous evidence, such as texts or historical ties to a location--again often relying on texts). That is the reason that none of the examples I have given deal with specific artifacts. It simply isn't the way archaeology works.

As for what archaeology can do with a text, it can be compared to see if the reconstructed historical trends (as argued on the basis of the artifacts as a group, rarely from a single artifact) matches the trends in the text. Those are precisely the types of evidences I suggested. So, no I am not answering the specific question you ask because it is a question that should not be asked of any reconstruction based on archaeology in the absence of texts. I did give you other types of arguments that are used in such cases, which you seem to studiously ignore in favor of repeating the same questions.

Of course what Dr. Hamblin suggested is completely unrelated to your restatement. He gave you the kind of evidence that can be given for historical reconstructions based on archaeology, and told you that what you were asking for doesn't match what any archaeologist does. As he suggested, you might want to become a little better informed about archaeology as a science. It will improve the quality of your inquiries.

There are quite a few ways to study these days that don't require spending a lot of money. None of them, however, relinquish the responsibility of spending time. Actual scholarship does not come in 1/2 sitcom storylines. Blustering that someone should spoon feed you instead of requiring that you learn requisite information does not substitute for learning. If you were actually serious about learning, your approach would be quite different than what you are demonstrating.

I have a hard time assessing what you mean. I have seen no willingness on your part to understand archaeology prior to demanding that it fit your conception of what it should do. That has nothing to do with Mormonism. If you are suggesting that you are willing to read and respond to posts, but not open a book, then there isn't much point to continuing the posts.

Courteous is always possible and should be the norm. As for "this framework," that is, unfortunately, part of the problem. I can't agree to your framing of the issue because it fundamentally misunderstands the methodologies of the social sciences that would be applied to the basic answer. If we can't even agree on secular scholarship, we have little chance of agreeing on something where you have clearly already taken a position.

So, if you would like to agree on a beginning framework, let's develop one that a secular archaeologist or ethnohistorian could accept and go from there.

Brant has it exactly right. For example, I visited Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan this summer. It was the capital of a Middle Bronze Age state on the Murghab river beginning around 2500 BCE. It had massive fortifications, temples, altars homes, palaces, tombs, etc. It was discovered only in the 1970s. We don't know the name of the people, its kings, priests, language, religion, gods, poetry, etc. We have artifacts, but no culture. For other groups we have cultural remains (textual references) but no artifacts. (For example, the Jewish Khazars, who claim to have rebuilt the Tabernacle.) That's just the way it works.

[volgadon]

For other groups we have cultural remains (textual references) but no artifacts. (For example, the Jewish Khazars, who claim to have rebuilt the Tabernacle.)

We actually do have Khazar artifacts.

Edited to add: In case anyone might misconstrue my post, I am not saying that we have Khazar artifacts but no BoM-related ones. I am merely pointing out that there are Khazar remains and artifacts.

[Ariarates]

I will begin with your assertion that " Brant says there is evidence that correlates the BoM text to archaeological artifacts." That is incorrect, and incorrect in such a way that it misrepresents what I said, and indicates that you don't understand the question you are asking.

Actually, it's a direct quote of what you said when you responded to my statement that "the smaller the area in which the BoM purportedly took place, the more likely it should be to find hard evidence of BoM people, places and events. There is no such evidence. Not a single scrap".

So I said "there is no evidence of BoM people, places and events" and you said "it is quite untrue that there is no shred of evidence". But when I asked for an example of such evidence (in a way that more or less objectively tells me that the evidence is solid), you started sulking how I even dared to ask such a question and how that shows how ignorant I am.

Artifacts don't do much. Devoid of texts, they tell you ab out material culture, but nothing about the language of the people who made them, or many of the other cultural data that might tie a particular artifact to a particular people. William Dever suggests that there are some village remains in Israel that he believes represent early Israelites. However, the artifacts themselves don't say that. There is nothing that demonstrates a particular connection. The entire reasoning he gives is an argument as to why the correlate to the text.

One of the most important archaeological artifacts is pottery. Changes in pottery styles can tell a lot about changes over time, general time frames, and often whether or not there is a cultural infusion. Without texts, however, they don't tell you who made them.

I understand what you are saying and did so the first time you said it. There's no need to keep repeating this while not answering my original question. If you do that, I get the impression that you are beating around the bush.

So, when you ask for a tie between the Book of Mormon and artifacts, you are asking for something that no archaeologist can give you for any culture (without other serendipitous evidence, such as texts or historical ties to a location--again often relying on texts). That is the reason that none of the examples I have given deal with specific artifacts. It simply isn't the way archaeology works.

Then why did you first say that it does exist?

So, no I am not answering the specific question you ask because it is a question that should not be asked of any reconstruction based on archaeology in the absence of texts. I did give you other types of arguments that are used in such cases, which you seem to studiously ignore in favor of repeating the same questions.

I'm not ignoring what you said; I'm putting it on hold until we get the premises of our discussion straight.

Of course what Dr. Hamblin suggested is completely unrelated to your restatement. He gave you the kind of evidence that can be given for historical reconstructions based on archaeology, and told you that what you were asking for doesn't match what any archaeologist does. As he suggested, you might want to become a little better informed about archaeology as a science. It will improve the quality of your inquiries.

I believe that giving clear and consise answers to plain and simple questions would help me to improve the quality of my inquiries. Repeatedly telling me how ignorant I am for asking the wrong questions... not so much.

There are quite a few ways to study these days that don't require spending a lot of money. None of them, however, relinquish the responsibility of spending time. Actual scholarship does not come in 1/2 sitcom storylines. Blustering that someone should spoon feed you instead of requiring that you learn requisite information does not substitute for learning. If you were actually serious about learning, your approach would be quite different than what you are demonstrating.

I am not looking to become a scholar. I am an interested layman who merely wants to understand what you are saying. I am willing to put in an effort but only if that effort will increase my understanding. Unlike you, I am not getting paid to study these things so yes, time and money are constraints (though not insurmountable ones). The focus of my repeated questions has been whether the references you and Bill gave me will confirm what you have stated in this discussion. You are not being clear on this.

I have a hard time assessing what you mean.

It's not that difficult:

1. You say there is evidence correlating the BoM text to archaeological artifacts. I ask to see just one example. Because I am not qualified to assess the evidence, I ask for a peer-reviewed, non-LDS publication (the author can be LDS). I believe this is a good, more or less objective way for me, as a layman, to determine that the research is probably solid.

2. I said you are cherry-picking because you cited a very limited number of examples of BoM events "which don't make much human sense" but "which make more sense read against the cultural/political pressures of the Maya region". You then point to a 6-volume publication which you claim "is 6 volumes of nearly verse by verse 'cherry picking'". To me, that statement implies that these are 6 volumes of verse by verse examples of BoM events which don't make much human sense but which do make sense in a Maya context. I merely asked you if that is indeed what you are implying. My reason for asking this, is that I am sceptical of your claim - not because I have read the 6 volumes but because I have read the BoM and know there is plenty of stuff in there that makes perfect sense in any human context.

3. Bill gave some references as a reply to my question in point 1, but later seemed to imply that these references did not, after all, back up your claim because that claim is silly to begin with. So which is it? I want to be clear on this before I read these references. If you or Bill don't think they support your claim, why should I read them?

Courteous is always possible and should be the norm. As for "this framework," that is, unfortunately, part of the problem. I can't agree to your framing of the issue because it fundamentally misunderstands the methodologies of the social sciences that would be applied to the basic answer. If we can't even agree on secular scholarship, we have little chance of agreeing on something where you have clearly already taken a position. So, if you would like to agree on a beginning framework, let's develop one that a secular archaeologist or ethnohistorian could accept and go from there.

I propose that such a secular framework already exists and that peer-review is a good way to measure whether your research fits in that framework.

However, the framework I was referring to is the framework of this discussion, meaning me doing the research that you say supports your claims. I am not clear on your claims, nor have you confirmed that the references you gave actually confirm your claims (whatever they are).

[Brant Gardner]

1. You say there is evidence correlating the BoM text to archaeological artifacts.

Well, that ends if for me. If, after all the time Bill and I have spent trying to help you understand that this particular question misunuderstands archaeological evidence, and after I specifically noted that I have not specifically said that the Book of Mormon is correlated to artifacts, you continue to repeat exactly the same thing.

That lack of progress convinces me that there will be no progress.

Please remember that in this thread Bill has given you evidence of the correlation of the Book of Mormon to reconstructed history based on archaeology, and I have as well (expanded in posts to someone else). It isn't that no one answers your questions. It is, and has been, that they are the wrong questions. Repeating them doesn't improve them.