Grains In Mosiah 9:9

[Analytics]

True, If one follows a strict Meso-American geography.

The complaint from the critics has always been... No Barley was EVER grown anywhere in the Americas before the Conquistadores brought it. Now that Archeology has proven that a form of it was. They are moving the Goalposts again.

I'm not moving the goalposts because the "small barley" might be the barley of the Book of Mormon. I'm examining the barley issue in the context of the BOM geography the contemporary Mormon scholars champion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not moving the goalposts because the "small barley" might be the barley of the Book of Mormon. I'm examining the barley issue in the context of the BOM geography the contemporary Mormon scholars champion.

Well at least you allow for the possibility.

[Zakuska]

Here is a website that has a map that shows where Barley is currently grown:

http://en.wikipedia....rley_production

It isn't grown in Mesoamerica. Unless there have been recent genetic alterations that I haven't heard about, it can't grow in Mesoamerica.

Here is the problem with that Map. Its showing where "current Genetic Strains" of Barley are grown for food. The Barley that we know as Barely that that map shows, the grains of barley are much bigger and are genetically disitinct from "little Barley". IOW They've been breed that way over the ages. Just like we, through selection are growing bigger and bigger beef.

Heres a map of Hordeum pusillum (little Barley) ranges for North America... Notice it is found in nearly the entire United States and parts of Canada. You can even Drill down to a state/county level.

http://plants.usda.g...ile?symbol=HOPU

Im trying to find a map for Centeral and South America.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[etana]

No, it isn't a strawman, and I'm not trying to ridicule. I'm trying to understand the implications of Sumerian word existing in a book that purportedly took place in Mesoamerica.

I was also trying to illustrate why I believe that this connection to the old world raises more problems than it solves.

alright. I'll take you at your word and take a closer look at your story.

Are you suggesting by this last statement that sheum is a hit? I don't understand how.

I still suspect that not understanding took a bit of effort here

What does this mean in the context of the Book of Mormon? As far as I can tell, you are suggesting something like this: The Lehites imigrated to the new world,

Good so far.

where they became genetically engulfed in the local Mayan population.

no. Not suggesting that at all. It is not neccessary for this point or relevent that I can see. Straw-man appeal 1?

They brought with them the word "sheum",

Yes, or as some believe, aquired it from the Jaredites. Since it was fossilized at such an early date it could have come from any number of sources in the Middle East much like the Hebrew names in the BOM, except there was no Akkadian teacher for Joseph to have learned it from like there was for (some of) the Hebrew names.

and the Mayans stopped using the word they'd previously used for one of their local foods (beans, perhaps?), and started calling it "sheum".

No. Strawman appeal 2. This is not about the Nephites being Mayans. I suspect you would like to make it so however.

Then, when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon and came across the word "sheum", he couldn't figure out know how to translate that as "bean", so he just left "sheum" there.

That's a good question! Why did he leave it only transliterated instead of translated? Maybe he wanted to make himself look foolish by sticking in a completely unecessary gobblety-gook word? I'm glad he did because I find it interesting.

Is that basically it?

after refining the dross, yes.

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm one of those poor unfortunate souls who thinks the Book of Mormon is obviously of 19th Century American origins. The Response to Dr. Michael Coe thread makes me wonder if my thinking is just too 1975 to appreciate the obvious plausibility of the book that modern scholars see. Just to get a sense of what I'm missing with the latest scholarship, I thought it might be best to focus in on a single verse. Mosiah 9:9 comes to mind, because it illustrates some of the problems I have with taking the Book of Mormon seriously, and hopefully you guys will see this as a slow ball.

SNIP

________________________________________________________

*We know they didn't have wheat and barley for a couple of reasons. First, if they had wheat and barley there would be archelogical evidence of it. Second, (and more importantly), wheat and barley don't grow in the tropics or subtropics, which encompass all Mayan lands. Even if Nephi did bring wheat and barley seeds with him, it wouldn't have grown in Mesoamerica.

If this sort of thing didn't exist for the other side of the balance scale, I'd be more concerned.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6500

Since it seems to me that it should be far easier to find evidence of volcanic activity 2000 years later than a few bits of grain 2000 years later, I would worry far more if we didn't have evidence of volcanic activity than a few grains. Kuhn observes that the choice of paradigms always includes decisions about which problems are most significant to have solved.

The dramatic demonstrations with a balance scale involves plunking down weights on only one side. But what does that tell you? Real science involves work on currently unsolved puzzles, which means that real science involves living with what Kuhn calls, "the essential tension."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Analytics]

Here is the problem with that Map. Its showing where "current Genetic Strains" of Barley are grown for food. The Barley that we know as Barely that that map shows, the grains of barley are much bigger and are genetically disitinct from "little Barley". IOW They've been breed that way over the ages. Just like we, through selection are growing bigger and bigger beef.

The larges range for Hordeum pusillum is nearly the entire state of illinoise.

True, but the map illustrates the point that barley grows well bellow approx 30-degrees north and 30-degrees south, just as its pre-domestication ancestors did.

[Analytics]

alright. I'll take you at your word and take a closer look at your story.

Thanks. The bit about "becoming engulfed in the local Mayan population" is my understanding of how Book of Mormon scholars view the story of Lehi. "Others" were here. Lots of others. So many others, that no genetic trace of Lehi should remain among his decendents.

The bit about Mayan words goes along the same lines. You don't have to accept any of it--I'm just trying to understand how scholars view the evidence.

[livy111us]

Here is a website that has a map that shows where Barley is currently grown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_barley_production

It isn't grown in Mesoamerica. Unless there have been recent genetic alterations that I haven't heard about, it can't grow in Mesoamerica.

That wikipedia link only shows barley production in tons, or as I take it, major exporters of barley and says nothing that about if it can or is grown elsewhere. As mentioned above, it is currently grown in Mesoamerica. There are several types that are grown, one of which is named after the county it is grown in. Hordeum guatemalense is grown in Guatamala and possibly be a new hybrid of different species and it is believed to made it's way to Central America through migratory birds. If this is an ancient species, it is possible that this could be what is mentioned in the BOM. If it is a new species, this goes to show that it is possible to have barley grow in the area that may not have been brought over from the Old World and adapted to the new climate. There isn't all that much written on it and there are differing opinions it's origins but would be an interesting one to keep our eye on.

Edited August 18, 2011 by livy111us

[Analytics]

If this sort of thing didn't exist for the other side of the balance scale, I'd be more concerned.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6500

Since it seems to me that it should be far easier to find evidence of volcanic activity 2000 years later than a few bits of grain 2000 years later....

You misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that wheat and barley haven't been found in Mesoamerica. I'm arguing that wheat and barley can't be grown in Mesoamerica.

...I would worry far more if we didn't have evidence of volcanic activity than a few grains. Kuhn observes that the choice of paradigms always includes decisions about which problems are most significant to have solved.

The Book of Mormon details the grain its people cultimated more often than what is construed as volcanic activity. The food issue is important.

[Zakuska]

So many others, that no genetic trace of Lehi should remain among his decendents.

Tell me Analytics... what did "Lehite DNA" look like in 600 BC?

If we can't even Answer that question how in the world are we going to know if what we are looking at is or isn't Lehite DNA to begin with?

Im going to post this again because it looks like you responded while I was editing...

Heres a map of Hordeum pusillum (little Barley) ranges for North America... Notice it is found in nearly the entire United States and parts of Canada. You can even Drill down to a state/county level.

http://plants.usda.g...ile?symbol=HOPU

Im trying to find a map for Centeral and South America.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

That wikipedia link only shows barley production in tons, or as I take it, major exporters of barley and says nothing that about if it can or is grown elsewhere.

Please read the book or watch the National Geographic video Guns, Germs, and Steel for a detailed explanation of where wheat and barley grow, and why that is a very important issue when studying the way civilizations have emerged.

As mentioned above, it is currently grown in Mesoamerica.

That was mentioned, but I don't think it is true.

[Analytics]

Tell me Analytics... what did "Lehite DNA" look like in 600 BC?

It looks like the dna people native to Jerusalem in 600 B.C.

Heres a map of Hordeum pusillum (little Barley) ranges for North America... Notice it is found in nearly the entire United States and parts of Canada. You can even Drill down to a state/county level.

That's my point. Wheat and Barley grow great in temperate climates. They don't grow in the tropics and sub-tropics.

Im trying to find a map for Centeral and South America.

You'll find that it grows great in Argentina and Chile, but not in the tropics and sub-tropics of Mesoamerica.

[livy111us]

Also, a few google searches turned up that Hordeum pussilum, Hordeum jubatum, Hordeum brachyantherum, Hordeum arizonacum, Hordeum guatamalense are all native barley species that grew from Canada to Mexico. There is probably more than that, but those are the ones I looked up.

[Zakuska]

As mentioned above, it is currently grown in Mesoamerica.

That was mentioned, but I don't think it is true.

If thats not true then why is Beer made from Barley doing so well in Panama?

http://data.mongabay...alue/166-Panama

Heres some "pot Barley" from central America.

http://data.mongabay.com/commodities/category/2-Trade/8-Crops+and+Livestock+Products/45-Pot+Barley/92-Export+Value/5204-Central+America+++(Total)

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[livy111us]

That was mentioned, but I don't think it is true.

By all means, look it up. I thought the name itself would be pretty obvious (Hordeum GUATAMALense) and give you enough to throw in a google search to see what it pulls up. Here is one abstract from a paper "Interspecific hybridization with Hordeum guatamalense" to show you that I am not lying and barley grows in Mesoamerica. If you take this with

"Hordeum guatamalense Von Bothmer et al. was recently described as a new species. It occurs in a restricted mountain area near the border of Mexico, where it grows in alpine meadows, above 3000 m. The species was assumed to be a diploid, but when living material recently became available it was found to be tetraploid...The genomic relationships to the other species in the genus have not been investigated either [it has now believed to have come from Hordeum jubatum and Hordeum brachyantherum]."

[Zakuska]

By all means, look it up. I thought the name itself would be pretty obvious (Hordeum GUATAMALense) and give you enough to throw in a google search to see what it pulls up. Here is one abstract from a paper "Interspecific hybridization with Hordeum guatamalense" to show you that I am not lying and barley grows in Mesoamerica. If you take this with

"Hordeum guatamalense Von Bothmer et al. was recently described as a new species. It occurs in a restricted mountain area near the border of Mexico, where it grows in alpine meadows, above 3000 m. The species was assumed to be a diploid, but when living material recently became available it was found to be tetraploid...The genomic relationships to the other species in the genus have not been investigated either [it has now believed to have come from Hordeum jubatum and Hordeum brachyantherum]."

We don't even need to go to new strains of Barley Liv.

According to this... Guatamala has had an extremely strong production of Barley since 1961.

http://data.mongabay...ld/89-Guatemala

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

<dbl>

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

We don't even need to go to new strains of Barley Liv.

According to this... Guatamala has had an extremely strong production of Barley since 1961.

http://data.mongabay...ld/89-Guatemala

Good work. I may have overstated my case.

But you may be overstating yours, as well. That website shows three graphs--seed, area harvested, and yield. The seed graph and area harvested graphs show that it was 1961 when they began successfully harvesting barley. According to your graph, in all of Guatemala they had about 10 hectares (or 25 acres) of land growing Barley in 1961.

The Green Revolution allowed farmers in 1961 to grow a crop in an area where previous generations of farmers had failed. Again, I refer you to Guns, Germs and Steel, where it chronicles westerners trying and failing to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics from the 1600's to the 1800's.

I do wonder, though. If the ancient Nephites would have mastered the cultivation of this extraordinarily valuable crop in Mesoamerica (to say nothing of wheat), wouldn't we expect the locals to quickly become dependent upon it and cling to it, resulting in it becoming a domesticated crop for that region, and then be a continuous part of the agricultural scene there to this day?

Edited August 19, 2011 by Analytics

[Zakuska]

Good work. I may have overstated my case.

But you may be overstating yours, as well. That website shows three graphs--seed, area harvested, and yield. The seed graph and area harvested graphs show that it was 1961 when they began successfully harvesting barley. According to your graph, in all of Guatemala they had about 10 hectares (or 25 acres) of land growing Barley in 1961.

The Green Revolution allowed farmers in 1961 to grow a crop in an area where previous generations of farmers had failed. Again, I refer you to Guns, Germs and Steel, where it chronicles westerners trying and failing to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics from the 1600's to the 1800's.

I do wonder, though. If the ancient Nephites would have mastered the cultivation of this extraordinarily valuable crop in Mesoamerica (to say nothing of wheat), wouldn't we expect the locals to quickly become dependent upon it and cling to it, resulting in it becoming a domesticated crop for that region, and then be a continuous part of the agricultural scene there to this day?

I don't necessarily think we can make that assumption. Thats just how far back NATO has been tracking the Barley production in Guatamala. How many years prior to that Barley production in Guatamala was started is anyone guess.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

If thats not true then why is Beer made from Barley doing so well in Panama?

http://data.mongabay...alue/166-Panama

Heres some "pot Barley" from central America.

http://data.mongabay.com/commodities/category/2-Trade/8-Crops+and+Livestock+Products/45-Pot+Barley/92-Export+Value/5204-Central+America+++(Total)

Do you even look at these before you post them? According to your source, all of central America exported exactly $0.00 (i.e. zero dollars) worth of Pot Barley in all years between 1961 and 2008, except in 2005, when they exported $1,000 worth of Pot Barley.

This one seems to confirm my point that Barley doesn't grow there.

[Analytics]

I don't necessarily think we can make that assumption. Thats just how far back NATO has been tracking the Barley production in Gutamala. How many years prior to that Barley production in Guatamala was started is anyone guess.

If you extrapolate the graph back, it must end quickly before 1961. After all, if it were a successful crop long before 1961, by 1961 there would have been much more than 25 acres of it.

[Zakuska]

The point of that whole exercise was to show that barley can be grown in the area. (Something that you conceeded) Now... if it was grown in that area during BOM times is a whole nother question.

But lets take a look at some other types of grains grown by native americans... we already have "little barley" on the list as shown in the archeological digs.

The history of Guatemala is often recognized in three stages: the Mayan Empire, Spanish rule, and the modern republic (which is in existence today). All three have had an influence on Guatemalan cuisine. The ancient Mayan civilization lasted for about six hundred years before collapsing around 900 A.D. These ancient natives lived throughout Central America and grew maize (corn) as their staple crop. In addition, the Maya ate amaranth , a breakfast cereal similar to modern day cereals. Guatemala remained under Spanish rule from 1524 to 1821. Typical Spanish dishes, such as enchiladas, guacamole, tamales, and tortillas , began making their way into the Guatemalan diet. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, an empanada (meat turnover) could be purchased for about twenty-five cents, chicken tortillas for fifty cents each, and a hot beef sandwich for about seventy-five cents. Other countries and their cultures have also affected the Guatemalan diet, including the Chinese. Most Guatemalan cities and towns have at least one Chinese restaurant.

http://www.foodbycou.../Guatemala.html

What exactly is amaranth?

Amaranth has been cultivated as a grain for 8,000 years. ^[1] The yield of grain amaranth is comparable to rice or maize. It was a staple food of the Aztecs, and was used as an integral part of Aztec religious ceremonies. The cultivation of amaranth was banned by the conquistadores upon their conquest of the Aztec nation. Because the plant has continued to grow as a weed since that time, its genetic base has been largely maintained. Research on grain amaranth began in the US in the 1970s. By the end of the 1970s, a few thousand acres were being cultivated.^[2] Much of the grain currently grown is sold in health food shops.

Grain amaranth is also grown as a food crop in limited amounts in Mexico, where it is used to make a candy called alegría (Spanish for happiness) at festival times. Amaranth species that are still used as a grain are: Amaranthus caudatus, Amaranthus cruentus, and Amaranthus hypochondriacus. The grain is popped and mixed with honey. In Maharashtra state of India, it is called “Rajgira” (राजगीरा) in the Marathi language. The popped grain is mixed with melted jaggery in proper proportion to make iron and energy rich “laddus,” a popular food provided at the Mid-day Meal Program in municipal schools.

Amaranth grain can also be used to extract amaranth oil - a particularly valued pressed seed oil with many commercial uses.

A type of grain. Liv had mentioned that earlier.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Analytics]

The point of that whole exercise was to show that barley can be grown in the area. (Something that you conceeded) Now... if it was grown in that area during BOM times is a whole nother question.

But lets take a look at some other types of grains grown by native americans... we already have "little barley" on the list as shown in the archeological digs.

In archeological digs inside or outside of Mesoamerica? In the right time period?

http://www.foodbycou.../Guatemala.html

What exactly is amaranth....

What's the significance of this? That corn, wheat, barley, neas, or sheum refer to amaranth? Which one?

[Zakuska]

In archeological digs inside or outside of Mesoamerica? In the right time period?

I know the north american digs (Illinoise, Arizona, New Mexico) were in the correct time frame. Im not exactly sure of the Meso American finds.

What's the significance of this? That corn, wheat, barley, neas, or sheum refer to amaranth? Which one?

Liv had mentioned that it has been suggested that the gramatical stucture of Mos 9:9 and "Shuem" could be used in the general sense word as "grain" rather than identifying a specific taxa. In the akadian Shuem is often used in that sense. So could it be Amaranth?

You'll have to go back through the thread to read what exactly he said about it.

I gotta hit the sack.

[Ariarates]

The point of that whole exercise was to show that barley can be grown in the area.

I think this is an excellent, to-the-point summary of BoM apologetics: the point is to prove what could have happened, not what actually did happen.

The focus of the discussion is on barley now (where most posters happily throw in whatever cultivar they can google , as if all these subspecies are interchangeable) but if you look at the grains mentioned in the verse of the OP, the big elephant in the room is this: if these crops were cultivated during the Bom timeframe, the history of Mesoamerica would have taken a totally different turn from what we now know to be the case. Nobody would revert to beans or maize (or even rice) if they were able to grow wheat. The difference in nutritional value is just too big.

Maybe it could have happened, but it certainly didn't or we would have known it.