When Should Non-Believers Take Bom Archaeology Seriously?

[Robert F. Smith]

I already quoted Clark doing just that and explicitly so.

Of course Clark is explicit and forthright in not whining about what is not known, and reasonably chooses to deal with what is known. Why would you respond to that in the fashion of a put-down artist?

Instead of complaining about what is not available at a crime scene (body, fingerprints, etc.), investigators will typically gather the evidence that is available and analyze it. Archeology is no different, except that the scenes are usually so much more ancient.

Why would you reject science and prefer lynch law?

[Astral_Lds]

In answer to the question what a genuine archaeologist is?. I would say that it is some one who is willing to put in the effort to read through all the literature and find out what archaeology is actually about.

I have studied archaeology/ anthropology for 4 years at university. As an archaeologist I take scatter pot sherds and bits of charcoal and make inferences about their meaning in the landscape in which I find them.

I never really know wither the assumptions that I have come to are correct.

As for the B of M the following are just 2 of many recent archaeological verification's. There is an event which even most LDS seem to have missed in Mesoamerican history called the Teotihuacan entrada this happened was concluded by 378 AD. recorded on a stone baton that was found at Tikal. This was the imposing of a new word order on the Mesoamerican world. many cities feel many kings where taken captive. Big deal a skeptic might say.

The B of M records in this year they did come down against the Nephites with all there power. the Book of Mormon says that this started to happen in 375 AD. If the BoM is a fabrication then it one lucky guess that Joseph made to put the destruction of the Nephites at the time when archaeology has confirmed was the time when warfare in Mesoamerica change to from on of collecting tribute to one of conquest and destruction of lineages and cities.

The second verification where archaeology is helping to support the Book of Mormon The San Bartolo murals show the coronation of a king in abt 250BC. This discovery came as a shock to the archaeologists as they did think that the concept of kings existed among the Maya of that time period. But from the book of mormon we knew that there were kings in the land from the time of Nephi.

There may still be a elephant in the room I feel that it is shrinking with each new archaeological discovery.

[Chris Smith]

One of the presenters at the gold plates seminar made a miniature plate of tumbaga just to show it could be done. She said the plates would've weighed about 60 pounds if made of tumbaga.

[cdowis]

You do it all the time. The argument goes like this: there may be little evidence for BoM historicity but New World archaeology is still in its infancy so a lot just hasn't been discovered yet

Actually, if you wish to claim that New World archeology is mature, you are still left with the problem of identification. We talk about the paucity of records, records which help enormously in other areas of archeology. We just don't have it here.

So we find a jade necklace, or even an entire city and have no means to determine whether it is Mayan, Nephite, Lamanite, or something else. Indeed we don't even know the REAL ancient names of the mayans, olmecs, or their cities.

One exception is in Belize, the city of Lamanai, which is virtually identical to a BOM name of a Lamanite king. It translated to "submerged crocodile" which may be an apt name for a great warrior. The BOM happens to mention that cities were named after their founder.

Of course, this is just another coincidence.

Edited August 21, 2011 by cdowis

[Astral_Lds]

Actually, if you wish to claim that New World archeology is mature, you are still left with the problem of identification. We talk about the paucity of records, records which help enormously in other areas of archeology. We just don't have it here.

So we find a jade necklace, or even an entire city and have no means to determine whether it is Mayan, Nephite, Lamanite, or something else. Indeed we don't even know the REAL ancient names of the mayans, olmecs, or their cities.

One exception is in Belize, the city of Lamanai, which is virtually identical to a BOM name of a Lamanite king. It translated to "submerged crocodile" which may be an apt name for a great warrior. The BOM happens to mention that cities were named after their founder.

Of course, this is just another coincidence.

Cdowis.

Now that epigraphers have started to be able to read the mayan glyphs many of the names of the cities are known. It is just because of convenience that the names are still called by what the archaeologist called them.

Heres a sample list.

Tikal = Mutal

Peidre Negas= Yokib

Yaxchillian= Pa- Chan

Copan = Mo witz

Palanque= Lakamha or Tok Tan or Bak. This city changed its three times.

Here a sample list where names of the ancient city have been presered into modern times

Lamani

Calakmul

Yaxha

Nakum

Noh Peten

Chichen Itza

[cdowis]

Thanks for updating me.

[Robert F. Smith]

One of the presenters at the gold plates seminar made a miniature plate of tumbaga just to show it could be done. She said the plates would've weighed about 60 pounds if made of tumbaga.

Sorry I missed that and the other Gold Plates Seminar papers due to Education Week conflicts.

I presented the basics on the Book of Mormon plates in “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” in the Oct 1984 FARMSUpdate, which was reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S.Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book,1992), 275-278. It is available online at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .