When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 11 August 2011 - 11:13 PM, said:

The other problem lies with the lack of volume in terms of mesoamerican research (relative to old world), this will take years to address in order to build a proper base of knowledge by which to clearly define the many cultures we presently know nothing about.

I seriously doubt that this is true. To begin with, the juxtaposition with the "old world" is entirely arbitrary. And what is meant by the "old world" anyway? Rome, Greece and Palestine, or Eurasia and North Africa? And what about China or Africa? Moreover, as a scientific discipline, archaeology is younger than the published BoM and Mesoamerica was an area of interest and discovery right from the beginning.

Every point of view is "arbitrary" so you first statement is irrelevant. As to "old world" it is common parlance even in archeology. And a commonly held viewpoint.

Operationally, archaeology has come to mean the study of past human societies and their environments through the systematic recovery and analysis of material culture or physical remains. The primary aims of the discipline are thus: to recover, record, analyse, and classify archaeological material; to describe and interpret the patterns of human behaviours that led to its creation; and to explain or develop an understanding of the reasons for this behaviour. In Europe and the Old World archaeology has tended to focus on the material remains themselves (sites and monuments), the techniques of recovering material, and theoretical and philosophical underpinnings inherent to achieving its goals. In the New World attention is directed more towards the subject matter and past human societies, and as such is considered one of the four fields of anthropology. In both traditions, the attainment of a broadly based archaeology involves multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary endeavour, and it can fairly be said that the discipline of archaeology is a broad church embracing an increasingly large number of different subdiscipline areas or branches.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/archaeology#ixzz1V1Q9YNwD

Review or Old World Archeology and more, much more. Perhaps you aren't informed enough to know the difference? Perhaps you haven't availed yourself of sufficient exposure to see what it is they are speaking of. Perhaps you are simply ignorant of archeology along with so many other things. One can only speculate as to why something relatively well known is unknown to you.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ariarates]

Every point of view is "arbitrary" so you first statement is irrelevant. As to "old world" it is common parlance even in archeology. And a commonly held viewpoint.

Read more: http://www.answers.c...y#ixzz1V1Q9YNwD

Review or Old World Archeology and more, much more. Perhaps you aren't informed enough to know the difference? Perhaps you haven't availed yourself of sufficient exposure to see what it is they are speaking of. Perhaps you are simply ignorant of archeology along with so many other things. One can only speculate as to why something relatively well known is unknown to you.

Thank you very much for clearing up that minor point. Now could you also address my actual point:

In short: CFR that Mesoamerican archaeology in any way "lacks research volume" from which to "build a proper base of knowledge".

Thank you ;-)

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 11 August 2011 - 11:13 PM, said:

The other problem lies with the lack of volume in terms of mesoamerican research (relative to old world), this will take years to address in order to build a proper base of knowledge by which to clearly define the many cultures we presently know nothing about.

In short: CFR that Mesoamerican archaeology in any way "lacks research volume" from which to "build a proper base of knowledge".

Do you actually believe that the volume of archeological work based on the Levant as well as Europe is equal to the amount of work done in the Americas? Why not say "CFR the sun is yellow" one is tempted to merely raise one's hands and say "whatever", it is equivalent to your lack knowledge regarding the difference between Old World archeology and that of the New World. Consider that pre-history is defined by the known existence of writing which can be studied on a regular basis and translated. The Old World has such writings and study going back to pre Sumerian periods. Volumes of study and on going sites continue even today to be considered. This study far far outstrips what is being done, even today in the Americas.

New World States and Empires: Economic and

Read the report and understand the lack of research it laments.

To most people it is obvious because of the years of research as well as the knowledge and contiguous history of the old world (and yes it is a well known term) have been most advantageous relative to the often still unexplored regions in the Americas.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 August 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Every point of view is "arbitrary" so you first statement is irrelevant. As to "old world" it is common parlance even in archeology. And a commonly held viewpoint.

Read more: http://www.answers.c...y#ixzz1V1Q9YNwD

Review or Old World Archeology and more, much more. Perhaps you aren't informed enough to know the difference? Perhaps you haven't availed yourself of sufficient exposure to see what it is they are speaking of. Perhaps you are simply ignorant of archeology along with so many other things. One can only speculate as to why something relatively well known is unknown to you.

Thank you very much for clearing up that minor point. Now could you also address my actual point:

In short: CFR that Mesoamerican archaeology in any way "lacks research volume" from which to "build a proper base of knowledge".

Thank you ;-)

Of course when you are crushed it is but the weight of a feather intellectually as you have implied. It is telling that something so obvious in the answer is lost on you, can we be more simplistic in finding CFR's? The lack of understanding on your part may indeed present the a formidable wall to overcome, not necessarily the information itself.

[cdowis]

Well, here's a List of Scholars. And I'm sure they know the names, addresses, and submission requirements for all the best journals. My question is, have they ever been turned down for publication because they submitted a paper titled (something like) "A Case for a MesoAmerican Setting of the Book of Mormon." ?? Or, have they ever even submitted such a paper to one of the respected journals in their field? If not, why not (see post #56)?

Clearly you already know the answer -- NONE of them. Look, I'm not your mother, so go waste your own time. I'm not going to chase down some rabbit hole.

No professional journal will review/publish any research tying the book delivered by an angel with archeology or historical research. They will simply take the same position as the Smithsonian.

But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[Ariarates]

New World States and Empires: Economic and

Thank you for that article, it looks very interesting. I am curious how it will turn out to support your thesis that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge, seeing as the first paragraph speaks of "a real explosion in archaeological and documentary research" and of "fieldwork and analysis proceeding at a rapid clip" but I guess I'm jumping the gun here, let's read the whole thing first...

[cdowis]

CFR on his expertise to ask such a question, please.

He is a very respected archaeologist and has studied Mormonism enough to publish about it. If I am not mistaken, he counts not a few LDS archaeologists like Sorensen and Clark as his professional friends and has observed Mormon fieldwork firsthand in Mesoamerica.

Perhaps I was unclear.

What is his familiarity of the BOM. Has he ever read it, has he done an detailed analysis of its scientific claims, such as towers used in religious rites, written records, the calendar, and other technological and cultural features mentioned in this book.

We are interested in his expertise in the BOM itself. Can we ask him some very specific factual questions from the BOM text, and let's find out whether he knows the answer. For example, what language did the Nephites use -- Hebrew, Egyptian, or something else. We would really really really like to know if he even knows the basics.

Lets hear his clear and concise answers to basic questions on the BOM. As a professor, he knows that those who are ignorant of the subject often try to bluff their way with clear and concise statements, hoping that no one will notice that they are factually incorrect.

I thought you knew that as well, but I guess not. His credentials only make his responsibility greater, they do not endow him with knowledge in this specific area. Indeed if he were to participate in this forum, we may find his statements shocking in their ignorance of the BOM text.

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

As Coe himself observes, they would have to be found primarily in Chiapas and in Guatemala. He sees no correlation between the Nephites and any known culture in Mesoamerica. Naturally, he sees the Book of Mormon as fantasy on a par with the Israelite Exodus from Egypt -- no evidence for either, he says.

Give us DETAILS!!! What specific cultural details is he comparing?????

What are the specific cultural aspects of the nephites. He mentions jews from the time of Moses.... is that his idea of Nephite culture? And the Egyptians and Jew from the Old Testament? Is that his view of Nephite culture?

"I don't find Egyptian era Jewish culture in the Americas" Is that what your expert is telling us? Is this the best you can do.

If you are going to quote him, you must defend him. Does he know the basics of the BOM text?

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[Ariarates]

You must truly suppose that we are brainless morons.

Give us DETAILS!!! What specific cultural details is he comparing?????

What are the specific cultural aspects of the nephites. He mentions jews from the time of Moses.... is that his idea of Nephite culture? And the Egyptians and Jew from the Old Testament? Is that his view of Nephite culture?

"I don't find Egyptian era Jewish culture in the Americas" Is that what your expert is telling us? Is this the best you can do.

If you are going to quote him, you must defend him. Does he know the basics of the BOM text?

Err, cdowis, take a pill man. I don't think Robert was quoting Coe in any way that would make it necessary for him to defend him against your hysterical ranting. In fact, I think he was responding to me and showing that he was familiar with Coe's work.

Edit: and yes, he does know the basics of the BoM text. There's a podcast on Mormon Stories that you could listen to to verify this. He also mentioned he published in Dialogue in the 1970's but I haven't read what that was all about.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Ariarates

[cdowis]

Err, cdowis, take a pill man. I don't think Robert was quoting Coe in any way that would make it necessary for him to defend him against your hysterical ranting. In fact, I think he was responding to me and showing that he was familiar with Coe's work.

Edit: and yes, he does know the basics of the BoM text. There's a podcast on Mormon Stories that you could listen to to verify this. He also mentioned he published in Dialogue in the 1970's but I haven't read what that was all about.

I apologize for my tone.

Now are you going to answer my question?

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Where are the actors"

Coe, paraphrase.

Before you can ask "where", you must ask "who are the actors" and how do you identify them. We find a jade necklace -- how do we identify the "actor". Who made the necklace -- Nephite, Lamanite, Mayan, somebody else.

If you say, "I can't find the actors", you must tell us how you can identify the actors, what you are looking for. You may have a physical artifact from the nephites in your hand but have no way to identify it.

Pretty basic. Someone with a PhD should know that.

Edited August 14, 2011 by cdowis

[Ariarates]

Before you can ask "where", you must ask "who are the actors" and how do you identify them. We find a jade necklace -- how do we identify the "actor". Who made the necklace -- Nephite, Lamanite, Mayan, somebody else.

If you say, "I can't find the actors", you must tell us how you can identify the actors, what you are looking for. You may have a physical artifact from the nephites in your hand but have no way to identify it.

Pretty basic. Someone with a PhD should know that.

Coe is an expert on the Maya and he is very straightforward about how we know what we know about the Maya and why they are not Nephites or Lamanites or any other -ites: we can read what the Mayans wrote and therefore know who they are and how they lived and it is nothing like what the BoM describes. Pretty basic indeed.

[Ariarates]

Do you actually believe that the volume of archeological work based on the Levant as well as Europe is equal to the amount of work done in the Americas? Why not say "CFR the sun is yellow" one is tempted to merely raise one's hands and say "whatever", it is equivalent to your lack knowledge regarding the difference between Old World archeology and that of the New World. Consider that pre-history is defined by the known existence of writing which can be studied on a regular basis and translated. The Old World has such writings and study going back to pre Sumerian periods. Volumes of study and on going sites continue even today to be considered. This study far far outstrips what is being done, even today in the Americas.

New World States and Empires: Economic and

Read the report and understand the lack of research it laments.

To most people it is obvious because of the years of research as well as the knowledge and contiguous history of the old world (and yes it is a well known term) have been most advantageous relative to the often still unexplored regions in the Americas.

Hi Jeff, I read the article you posted and I withdraw my earlier comment that it looks interesting. It was rather boring actually, as is usually the case with literature reviews :-)

Anyway, I wonder if you provided the wrong link because the article argues the exact opposite from your thesis (that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge). For most of the dozens of areas of (Meso)american archaeology that the authors identify, they say that there are more data than theories. They only define two areas where data are lacking: class structure of the Classic Maya and the Aztec, and gender (on which topic the literature was "too vast to review here" - and in both cases they argue that in addition to more empirical data, more theoretical concepts and methodologies are needed as well.

If anything, I came away from reading the article impressed with the depth and scope of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fail to see how this reference supports your thesis that it should be inferior to old world archaeology (however you define that term).

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm confused. First you say: "All of us should simply expect that it be used honestly and fairly, and that is the purpose of scholarly peer review and formation of consensus over time." Then, when I ask where this peer review and consensus building takes place, you say "in blogs, articles, and books".

If LDS scholars want their interpretation of NHM to stick, they're going to have to publish it in the proper scientific arena. Otherwise, it's faithpromoting speculation. Not that there's is anything wrong with that, but to claim, in the absence of such publications, that the NHM altar is evidence for, or even an indication of, BoM historicity would be dishonest and misleading.

Sorry, Ariarates.

Mormon archeologists regularly publish in mainstream academic journals on strictly non-Book of Mormon subjects and do an excellent job of it.

I thought you understood that this blog (and others you are familiar with) includes regular discussion of these Book of Mormon issues, and regularly cites peer reviewed books and articles on the subject. While it is true that the articles do not include American Antiquity and similar mainstream academic journals, no such article would ever be accepted by such journals. You imply that serious Mormon scholars should accept the blame for their exclusion from wider publication on the Book of Mormon. This constitutes blaming the victim.

In any case, some of the more general discussions of these issues have come out in books by Mormons published by major publishing houses (Terryl Givens with Oxford Univ. Press, and RIchard Bushman with A. A. Knopf, etc.), and this will continue as long as the Mormon scholars provide well-written and high quality historical research.

It should be quite enough that hard core peer review takes place within the scholarly Mormon community, a status which outsiders Mosser & Owen did not complain about in their searching evaluation of such scholarship here.

I beg to differ; he seems to be perfectly aware of the challenges of BoM archaeology. You just don't like his conclusion but that's no reason to discredit the man.

I'm not saying that Coe is not very sharp and well-informed on Mesoamerican matters (I use his books and articles all the time), nor that I would not like to read a serious review by him of Mormon scholarly writing on Book of Mormon archeology. His comments would be most welcome. He has already accepted powerful sea-borne pre-Columbian Asian influence in Mesoamerica and in South America, and this now constitutes the consensus within New World scholarship generally.

That Coe is unaware of recent developments in Book of Mormon archeology is understandable. Why would he even bother to review the work being done? He long ago decided what the facts must be and is on record about how that attitude developed as early as his days as a grad-student.

[Robert F. Smith]

People say this all the time, but I don't think it's true. In most religious systems, the "supernatural" is thought to affect the physical world in observable and even regular ways. Finding good evidence for certain types of "supernatural" phenomena is no less possible than finding good evidence for dark matter or the curvature of space.

I do agree, though, that any phenomenon for which there was good scientific evidence would be recategorized from supernatural to natural. "Supernatural" is just what we call scientifically unwarranted beliefs that people are really attached to.

There was jeering when plate tectonics was first published, too. But the nice thing about the scientific process is that such ideas eventually do catch on, if they have sufficient evidentiary warrant.

Excellent observations, Chris.

However, would it be worth considering an entirely naturalistic case for Book of Mormon authenticity? At that point (to go back to the OP), if a credible secular case can be made, would that be the time when non-believers should take the Book of Mormon seriously? Say, the way in which biblical scholarship is taken seriously.

[Robert F. Smith]

Give us DETAILS!!! What specific cultural details is he comparing?????

What are the specific cultural aspects of the nephites. He mentions jews from the time of Moses.... is that his idea of Nephite culture? And the Egyptians and Jew from the Old Testament? Is that his view of Nephite culture?

"I don't find Egyptian era Jewish culture in the Americas" Is that what your expert is telling us? Is this the best you can do.

If you are going to quote him, you must defend him. Does he know the basics of the BOM text?

cdowis:

This is the context of my comment, and I was clearly not agreeing with Coe. Merely citing his views, which are based on incorrect and nonexistent information:

Quote

to paraphrase Michael Coe: where are the actors?

Robert F. Smith comment:

As Coe himself observes, they would have to be found primarily in Chiapas and in Guatemala. He sees no correlation between the Nephites and any known culture in Mesoamerica. Naturally, he sees the Book of Mormon as fantasy on a par with the Israelite Exodus from Egypt -- no evidence for either, he says.

Actually, he is mostly unaware of the very advanced work being done in correlating the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican cultures, and the first major book on Book of Mormon archeology should be out in a matter of months.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Coe is an expert on the Maya and he is very straightforward about how we know what we know about the Maya and why they are not Nephites or Lamanites or any other -ites: we can read what the Mayans wrote and therefore know who they are and how they lived and it is nothing like what the BoM describes. Pretty basic indeed.

Actually, the Maya we all know about and whose inscriptions we can read are post-Book of Mormon Classic period Maya. We cannot yet read the Formative and pre-Classic period Mayan inscriptions, although a lot of work is being done right now on trying to decipher them. Moreover, the Maya of Guatemala (as Coe himself realizes would have to be the case if the Book of Mormon were authentic) would most likely be closely related to the Lamanites, while the Nephites and Mulekites would be identifiable with or closely related to the Mixe-Zoque people of Chiapas in the Grijalva River Valley in southern Mexico. The Jaredites would therefore most likely be related to or identifiable with the Olmec. The archeological time periods of their floresence and demise in each case fits the Book of Mormon chronology quite well.

There are additional, detailed archeological reasons for finding that the Book of Mormon fits into a contemporary Mesoamerica like a hand can fit into a glove of the right size. The points of correlation are simply too extensive and complex to deny the obvious.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

He also mentioned he published in Dialogue in the 1970's but I haven't read what that was all about.

That issue is Dialogue is 8/2 (Summer 1973), 42-48, and you can read it online here. However, it is very much out of date and poorly informed.

[Jeff K.]

Hi Jeff, I read the article you posted and I withdraw my earlier comment that it looks interesting. It was rather boring actually, as is usually the case with literature reviews :-)

Anyway, I wonder if you provided the wrong link because the article argues the exact opposite from your thesis (that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge). For most of the dozens of areas of (Meso)american archaeology that the authors identify, they say that there are more data than theories. They only define two areas where data are lacking: class structure of the Classic Maya and the Aztec, and gender (on which topic the literature was "too vast to review here" - and in both cases they argue that in addition to more empirical data, more theoretical concepts and methodologies are needed as well.

If anything, I came away from reading the article impressed with the depth and scope of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fail to see how this reference supports your thesis that it should be inferior to old world archaeology (however you define that term).

It can be boring true.

But what you don't seem to realize is the "dozens" of places you mention are matched by the "hundreds" in old world archeology. And information versus theories is an important factor. Again we have a much firmer grasp because so many theories in old world archeology have an almost contiguous relationship with history (and the luck of the rosetta stone for early egyptian). We have potter shards, but we aren't sure what the pottery shards mean, or we have a building, but we aren't sure what the building was used for. You can see how material does not translate to knowledge, especially when mesoamerican or new world archeology is so bereft of the large and long term studies made of old world archeology.

Side note: Here is a less scholarly but more interesting read. Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archeology

I did a quick peruse with google and found there was no little comparison, mostly made in passing...

Types of Archaeology

Prehistoric archaeology focuses on past cultures that did not have written language and therefore relies primarily on excavation or data recovery to reveal cultural evidence. Historical archaeology is the study of cultures that existed (and may still) during the period of recorded history--several thousands of years in parts of the Old World, but only several hundred years in the Americas. Within historical archaeology there are related fields of study that include classical archaeology, which generally focuses on ancient Greece and Rome and is often more closely related to the field of art history than to anthropology, and biblical archaeology, which seeks evidence and explanation for events described in the Bible and therefore is focused primarily on the Middle East. Underwater archaeology studies physical remains of human activity that lie beneath the surface of oceans, lakes, rivers, and wetlands. It includes maritime archaeology—the study of shipwrecks in order to understand the construction and operation of watercraft—as well as cities and harbors that are now submerged, and dwellings, agricultural, and industrial sites along rives, bays and lakes. Some of the other specialties within archaeology include urban archaeology, industrial archaeology, and bioarchaeology. Cultural Resource Management archaeology, known as “CRM” refers to archaeology that is conducted to comply with federal and state laws that protect archaeological sites.

archaeology for the public

Since historical archaelogy in the Americas did not really begin until the late 19th century (versus the much earlier time period in Europe) it seems counter intuitive that Old World archaeology when compared to the Americas is not more heavily studied. I will find something more concrete on the matter though.

[Ariarates]

Mormon archeologists regularly publish in mainstream academic journals on strictly non-Book of Mormon subjects and do an excellent job of it.

I agree and never said otherwise.

I thought you understood that this blog (and others you are familiar with) includes regular discussion of these Book of Mormon issues, and regularly cites peer reviewed books and articles on the subject. While it is true that the articles do not include American Antiquity and similar mainstream academic journals, no such article would ever be accepted by such journals. You imply that serious Mormon scholars should accept the blame for their exclusion from wider publication on the Book of Mormon. This constitutes blaming the victim.

That's not quite what I said or meant. If you don't publish in mainstream scientific publications about BoM archaeology (for whatever reason), BoM archaeology remains faithpromoting speculation. That's just the way it is. Publish or perish.

What I do find dishonest, however, is publishing on strictly non-BoM topics and then, toward the faithful, maintain that this legitimate scholarship in any way supports BoM historicity. I'm not saying legitimate LDS archaeologists do this, but I see it around here all the time.

That Coe is unaware of recent developments in Book of Mormon archeology is understandable. Why would he even bother to review the work being done? He long ago decided what the facts must be and is on record about how that attitude developed as early as his days as a grad-student.

I agree with your first two sentences here, although for different reasons than you - mine being that there are no archaeological advances in BoM archaeology, just more smoke and mirrors. Your next sentence, however, constitutes an accusation of Coe being prejudiced and closed-minded that I feel free to dismiss since it is offered without substantiation. Heck, even BYU archaeologists don't do BoM archaeology anymore, why should Coe be any different?

[Ariarates]

I apologize for my tone. Now are you going to answer my question?

Apology accepted and your question answered in my post # 137. In the mean time, I read Coe's Dialogue artitcle and must admit that Coe doesn't display the amount of knowledge on Mormonism there that I had expected based on his podcast.

[Ariarates]

Since historical archaelogy in the Americas did not really begin until the late 19th century (versus the much earlier time period in Europe) it seems counter intuitive that Old World archaeology when compared to the Americas is not more heavily studied. I will find something more concrete on the matter though.

I'd be interested in that. I appreciate a little more to go on than intuition. I'm regularly fooled by mine.

However, please keep in mind that the assertion that I am disputing is not about relative advancement of one archaeology over the other. You made the absolute statement that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge. I still think that is not true.

[Ariarates]

double again :-(

Edited August 15, 2011 by Ariarates

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

I heard that we've fully explored less than 1% of the identified Mesoamerican sites. It is premature at best to make grand statements about what we think we know of the area.

[Jeff K.]

I'd be interested in that. I appreciate a little more to go on than intuition. I'm regularly fooled by mine.

However, please keep in mind that the assertion that I am disputing is not about relative advancement of one archaeology over the other. You made the absolute statement that Mesoamerican archaeology lacks research volume from which to build a proper base of knowledge. I still think that is not true.

I still think the assertion is correct, and that the quantity of study is a fraction of that in the Old World studies. So I will continue looking for something more specific.