Jump to content

Mayan City Found


MatthewG

Recommended Posts

VERY interesting Article, read HERE

Some interesting snips:

Buried Pyramid

From about 600 B.C. to A.D. 900, Head of Stone—which is about three-quarters of a mile (1 kilometer) long and a third of a mile (0.5 kilometer) wide—was a bustling midsize Maya center, home to about 2,000 permanent residents.

But today its structures are buried under several feet of earth and plant material and are nearly invisible to the untrained eyed.

Even Head of Stone's three-pointed pyramid—once one of the city's most impressive buildings—"just looks like a mountain enveloped in forest," said study leader Kovacevich, who presented the findings at a meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Sacramento, California.

Maybe this is old news. But it just popped up on digg.com when I happen to be reading some other articles, so thought I'd through it up here. Maybe an old Nephite/Lamanite city???

Link to comment
Oftentimes archaeologists are looking at the biggest pyramids or temples to find the tombs of early kings, but during this Late-Middle Preclassic period"—roughly 600 B.C. to 300 B.C.—"the king is not the center of the universe yet, so he's probably still being buried in the household," said Kovacevich, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

"That may be why so many Preclassic kings have been missed" by archaeologists, who expected to find the rulers' burials at grand temples, she added.

Sounds like a useful clue.

Link to comment

It was 1am my time when you posted it. Be patient and give people some time to read. :D

Very cool discovery. Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment

So is this part of the c. 1% of sites dug into? Or is it a new "frontier" of archeological exploration? Either way it doesn't matter vis-a-vis the BoM. Unless positive correlation with BoM place names is shown, nothing "Mayan" will shed any illumination on BoM "archeology"....

Why is that?

Link to comment

So is this part of the c. 1% of sites dug into? Or is it a new "frontier" of archeological exploration? Either way it doesn't matter vis-a-vis the BoM. Unless positive correlation with BoM place names is shown, nothing "Mayan" will shed any illumination on BoM "archeology"....

This has nothing to do with "proving" the BOM, but to demonstrate that many of the arguments of the critics are nonsense.

For example, "we can't find any huge mounds of earth" from the jaredite period where they were mining iron. This statement was made right here on this forum.

Link to comment

Unless positive correlation with BoM place names is shown, nothing "Mayan" will shed any illumination on BoM "archeology"....

That seems a little unfair, doesn't it? The names of the vast majority of Maya sites (6000+) are not only unknown, but will forever remain unknowable. There are maybe a dozen polities whose ancient names we can read phonetically with any measure of confidence (if even that many). As a Mesoamerican archaeologist, I can assure you that toponyms are not the only evidence we rely on when striving to understand the Maya, not by a long shot. Asserting that a place name is the only admissible piece of evidence shows a total lack of understanding of what is known or even knowable in the Maya area. Contrary to your assertion, a great deal of what we know about the Maya illuminates the Book of Mormon. You simply dismiss the evidence we do have and demand the evidence that cannot be produced, not because it never existed, but because of limitations in the archaeological record.

Link to comment
snapback.pngQuesting Beast, on 28 April 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

Unless positive correlation with BoM place names is shown, nothing "Mayan" will shed any illumination on BoM "archeology"....

That seems a little unfair, doesn't it? The names of the vast majority of Maya sites (6000+) are not only unknown, but will forever remain unknowable. There are maybe a dozen polities whose ancient names we can read phonetically with any measure of confidence (if even that many). As a Mesoamerican archaeologist, I can assure you that toponyms are not the only evidence we rely on when striving to understand the Maya, not by a long shot. Asserting that a place name is the only admissible piece of evidence shows a total lack of understanding of what is known or even knowable in the Maya area. Contrary to your assertion, a great deal of what we know about the Maya illuminates the Book of Mormon. You simply dismiss the evidence we do have and demand the evidence that cannot be produced, not because it never existed, but because of limitations in the archaeological record.

Many of these very promising Preclassic sites seem to be out of the Nephite orbit (not in the vicinity of Chiapas), to go by the best correlations I've seen. So, even if we call this latest place Hol-tun "Head of Stone," it might not be helpful to Questing Beast's immediate need for toponymic correlation. He needs to take a course in anthropology and broaden his purview as to what other sorts of evidence can be brought to bear.

Link to comment

Many of these very promising Preclassic sites seem to be out of the Nephite orbit (not in the vicinity of Chiapas), to go by the best correlations I've seen. So, even if we call this latest place Hol-tun "Head of Stone," it might not be helpful to Questing Beast's immediate need for toponymic correlation. He needs to take a course in anthropology and broaden his purview as to what other sorts of evidence can be brought to bear.

But just so everyone is clear, Holtun, "Head of Stone", is a name that was made up by the archaeologists because they found a stone head there. It's not the ancient name. To give another example, a friend of mine is working at a site in Belize called Minanha, which literally means "No Water". They named it that because the river dried up centuries ago and it makes their work harder because they have to pack in all of their water when they work there. But anciently it had an abundance of agricultural terraces and a perennial spring, but we haven't a clue what the ancient Maya themselves called it. There are no texts from Holtun that indicate what its ancient name was. The name Holtun is a recent nickname, made up by archaeologists, and is completely unrelated to the ancient name.

Link to comment

The very absence of any "textual" evidence is counter to the culture described in the BoM, which is HIGHLY literate. You can assert that only the prophets, priests and royalty were literate, leaving the main mass of population as illiterate. But that won't fly very far. It is the very monuments being unearthed which "speak" of the upper classes of the Maya and Olmec. If these greatest extant monumental structures give no clues as to written language, then how exactly does any of this archeology tie into BoM times?...

Link to comment

The very absence of any "textual" evidence is counter to the culture described in the BoM, which is HIGHLY literate. You can assert that only the prophets, priests and royalty were literate, leaving the main mass of population as illiterate. But that won't fly very far. It is the very monuments being unearthed which "speak" of the upper classes of the Maya and Olmec. If these greatest extant monumental structures give no clues as to written language, then how exactly does any of this archeology tie into BoM times?...

The point is that very few of the sites that are known have texts that have survived, and of those that have survived, we don't know how to phonetically read the names of most of them. Let's take Holtun, the site under discussion on this thread. There are 115 monumental structures known from that site, yet not a single glyph has survived. Not one. Yet the Maya were without question a literate culture. It could have had "Welcome to Zarahemla" written all over the city, but because none of the texts have survived from that site, it is unknowable.

Of the texts that do survive from other sites, despite the rarity of readable toponyms, we can draw many parallels to what we know of Nephite culture. The majority of Classic period monuments begin with a "Long Count", which begins with a count of baktuns (400 years) and katuns (20 years). Moroni 10, the closing chapter of the Book of Mormon, begins with a count of 400 years and 20 years. Maya monuments were often erected every five years (hotun) to commemorate the passage of time, and prophecies were made concerning the coming of the next hotun in five years. Samuel the Lamanite makes a hotun prophecy when he states that in "five years" signs would be given concerning the birth of Christ. Maya monuments often record the "Lunar Series", and the primary count of days was the 260 day calender modern scholars have nicknamed the tzolk'in. The Book of Omni records a lunar count; Coriantumr dwelt with the people of Zarahemla for "nine moons", the equivalent of a tzolkin, or 260 days. Maya monuments recount the day and year a ruler was seated upon a throne (the word "seat", chum, was used almost exclusively to denote accession/rulership). Virtually every time the word "seat" or "seated" is used in the Book of Mormon it is in association with rulership and accession. Maya monuments, specifically those with inscriptions carved into them, were called lakamtun (the lakamtun glyph was often carved on the monument itself), which literally means "large stone". In Omni we read that a "large stone" was brought to Mosiah with engravings on it (which is literally the name the Maya would have called it). Rulers were sometimes given the title k'uhul winik, which literally means "holy man". The only two people called "holy man" in the Book of Mormon are King Benjamin and Alma the Younger, both rulers of Zarahemla. A text from Dos Pilas recounts the destruction of a city by fire and uses chiasmus to tell the tale. 3 Nephi 9:10 records the destruction of cities by fire, also using chiasmus. Same topic, same literary structure. It is through texts we know that certain major polities, like Tikal, had overlordship over smaller sites, which is exactly the situation we see among the Lamanites, where Lamoni was king of the city of Ishmael but was subordinate to his father, ruler over all of the Land of Nephi(incidentally, Tikal wasn't named Tikal anciently; it may have been named Mutal, but we aren't 100% positive. Tikal has one of the best preserved sets of monuments and texts, and we aren't even sure of its name. Let that sink in).

All of the above is textual evidence, but you refuse to accept any of it because according to you, if there is no place name, then nothing else counts. Lack of evidence is not the problem; your refusal to allow it is.

Link to comment

All of the above is textual evidence, but you refuse to accept any of it because according to you, if there is no place name, then nothing else counts. Lack of evidence is not the problem; your refusal to allow it is.

I have to say that this is all pretty damn impressive.

Link to comment

Do we have any clue what medium was used as a daily correspondence by the Maya? There are the clay tablets of the Sumerians etc.,and some papyrus from the Egyptians .I don't know what the Hindu used but there are a lot of paper documents from the Chinese. Given the environment would give a hard time to most fragile documents in Mesoamerica,is there any info either physical or textual?

Link to comment

Do we have any clue what medium was used as a daily correspondence by the Maya? There are the clay tablets of the Sumerians etc.,and some papyrus from the Egyptians .I don't know what the Hindu used but there are a lot of paper documents from the Chinese. Given the environment would give a hard time to most fragile documents in Mesoamerica,is there any info either physical or textual?

They used bark-paper. Only four prehispanic books survived the conquest, and those are from the Late Postclassic period (immediately prior to the Conquest). We have lots of images on vases of scribes writing in paper books from the Classic period, but none of them have survived.

Link to comment

The point is that very few of the sites that are known have texts that have survived, and of those that have survived, we don't know how to phonetically read the names of most of them. Let's take Holtun, the site under discussion on this thread. There are 115 monumental structures known from that site, yet not a single glyph has survived. Not one. Yet the Maya were without question a literate culture. It could have had "Welcome to Zarahemla" written all over the city, but because none of the texts have survived from that site, it is unknowable.

Of the texts that do survive from other sites, despite the rarity of readable toponyms, we can draw many parallels to what we know of Nephite culture. The majority of Classic period monuments begin with a "Long Count", which begins with a count of baktuns (400 years) and katuns (20 years). Moroni 10, the closing chapter of the Book of Mormon, begins with a count of 400 years and 20 years. Maya monuments were often erected every five years (hotun) to commemorate the passage of time, and prophecies were made concerning the coming of the next hotun in five years. Samuel the Lamanite makes a hotun prophecy when he states that in "five years" signs would be given concerning the birth of Christ. Maya monuments often record the "Lunar Series", and the primary count of days was the 260 day calender modern scholars have nicknamed the tzolk'in. The Book of Omni records a lunar count; Coriantumr dwelt with the people of Zarahemla for "nine moons", the equivalent of a tzolkin, or 260 days. Maya monuments recount the day and year a ruler was seated upon a throne (the word "seat", chum, was used almost exclusively to denote accession/rulership). Virtually every time the word "seat" or "seated" is used in the Book of Mormon it is in association with rulership and accession. Maya monuments, specifically those with inscriptions carved into them, were called lakamtun (the lakamtun glyph was often carved on the monument itself), which literally means "large stone". In Omni we read that a "large stone" was brought to Mosiah with engravings on it (which is literally the name the Maya would have called it). Rulers were sometimes given the title k'uhul winik, which literally means "holy man". The only two people called "holy man" in the Book of Mormon are King Benjamin and Alma the Younger, both rulers of Zarahemla. A text from Dos Pilas recounts the destruction of a city by fire and uses chiasmus to tell the tale. 3 Nephi 9:10 records the destruction of cities by fire, also using chiasmus. Same topic, same literary structure. It is through texts we know that certain major polities, like Tikal, had overlordship over smaller sites, which is exactly the situation we see among the Lamanites, where Lamoni was king of the city of Ishmael but was subordinate to his father, ruler over all of the Land of Nephi(incidentally, Tikal wasn't named Tikal anciently; it may have been named Mutal, but we aren't 100% positive. Tikal has one of the best preserved sets of monuments and texts, and we aren't even sure of its name. Let that sink in).

All of the above is textual evidence, but you refuse to accept any of it because according to you, if there is no place name, then nothing else counts. Lack of evidence is not the problem; your refusal to allow it is.

And you have widened this comparison to other lingos, arraying them in columnar comparison to count the shared traits with each other? It is KJV English that you are comparing Mayan textual evidence to. I hazard to hypothesize, that if Mayan textual forms are compared to virtually any extant language, that a similar number of shared expressions and literary forms will be seen. Language, after all, is a fairly common feature of our species. There must necessarily be developed only a limited number of ways that ideas and chronology can be expressed.

I accept the rebuke: place names are NOT the only evidence I accept, just the most "cut to the chase" important ones, if they ever turn up at all, of course....

Link to comment

So where do you think the Hill Cummorah is? Where the LDS visitor's center is located or somewhere in Central America?

Really, what does this prove? You should consider what the Book of Mormon mentions that could never have been anywhere in the Americas at the time. Horses? Elephants? Millions of metal weapons in upstate NY?

Link to comment

So where do you think the Hill Cummorah is? Where the LDS visitor's center is located or somewhere in Central America?

Mormon 6:6 makes it clear that the plates of Mormon were not buried in the Hill Cumorah. The hill in New York is named in honor of that hill, but it is not that hill. I'm aware of the visionary experience where the hill opened up to reveal the plates in Joseph Smith's day, but it was just that, a visionary experience, much as Nephi was carried away by the Spirit to a mountain which he had never before seen and upon which he had never set his foot.

As for the horses and elephants, I agree that solid evidence is lacking, although I find explanations that have been offered to be plausible enough that it doesn't really bother me.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...