Grains In Mosiah 9:9

[LeSellers]

As a matter of fact: I do [think the Nephites cared about the differences between "barley" and "little barley"]. They would much rather cultivate barley than little barley. Little barley seeds are very small, much smaller than regular barley.

And yet, if we assume that they were trying to keep Kosher, at least during the first few decades (which the Book of Mormon assures they did, and not merely in those first years) when the linguistic differences might have been maintained, the Nephites would have noticed that their Euro-asiatic barley was not faring well, but that the other plant that looked like a smaller version of the required grain grew better, would they not have put their efforts into raising the better adapted food plant? Over time, the larger seed would be wholly forgotten, and the term "barley" (or whatever the hebrew word is/was) would be transferred to the new, local crop.

I know I'm not the premier linguist 'round here, but in my lifetime I have seen a myriad of words change meanings in three languages. A classic example is "guitar". As a child, when I heard the word "guitar" it was a specific intrument: a largish violin type instrument with frets, played using a strap to hold it near the waist. Today, the word does not mean what it did in my youth: it now refers to an electronic adaptation of the original. One can still distinguish the origins (it's only been fifty years), but the word "guitar" almost never means the same anymore. It's only an "acoustic (or classic/al) guitar" if you mean the old type.

In thirty years, when I'm dead (or nearly so), the old usage will be erased from the cultural memory.

Lehi

[Analytics]

And yet, if we assume that they were trying to keep Kosher, at least during the first few decades (which the Book of Mormon assures they did, and not merely in those first years) when the linguistic differences might have been maintained, the Nephites would have noticed that their Euro-asiatic barley was not faring well, but that the other plant that looked like a smaller version of the required grain grew better, would they not have put their efforts into raising the better adapted food plant? Over time, the larger seed would be wholly forgotten, and the term "barley" (or whatever the hebrew word is/was) would be transferred to the new, local crop.

I agree with this analysis, but we need to remember that "little barley" was local to the Eastern U.S., not to Mesoamerica. Unless you believe the Nephites lived in the Eastern U.S., this isn't helpful.

edited to add: However, I believe that regular old-world barley grows well in the same temperate places that "little barley" grows.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Analytics

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am assuming that you will get to Kermara's post? Curious to see what you think. He does present a very plausible scenario.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[LeSellers]

I am assuming that you will get to Kermara's post? Curious to see what you think. He does present a very plausible scenario.

I'm sorry. To whom are you speaking here?

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm sorry. To whom are you speaking here?

Lehi

The person above my post. Analytics.

[Analytics]

The Maori from New Zealand grew Ti Pore and Ti Para through the North Island, however no archeological evidence of its cultivation has been found. Maori also grew Kumara but only two separate growing sites have ever been archeologically verified, quite a sparse finding considering Kumara was the Maori’s principal food crop and was grown until the early 1800’s.

We have the Maori’s oral traditions and we have the European settler’s written record attesting to the fact that Ti Pore, Ti Para and Kumara were grown, so we have a historical record. In the case of Ti Pore and Ti Para we have no archeological evidence and precious little to support the position that Kumara was the principal food crop grown by the Maori. So, I have two questions for the archeological crowd.

1. Did the Maori in fact grow Ti Pore and Ti Para and was Kumara their biggest crop?

2. Due to there being no archeological evidence for it, is this considered a solid strike agaisnt the authenticity of the historical accounts affirming it?

I know basically nothing about the Maori or the crops you are talking about, so perhaps you can you clarify the facts here? First, are you saying that there is no physical evidence what-so-ever that Ti Pore and Ti Para ever grew anywhere on that island? Does Ti Para and Ti Pore typically grow in climates like the north island, or are they, for example, tropical plants that typically don't grow in places like New Zeland?

Is there a significant amount of physical evidence that crops other than Kumara were their biggest crop?

[LeSellers]

The person above my post. Analytics.

It just was not obvious. Relying on the sequence is a bit "dangerous" because another poster (or two or three) might intervene with their own messages, making it even more confusing.

Lehi

[Analytics]

I am assuming that you will get to Kermara's post? Curious to see what you think. He does present a very plausible scenario.

I responded to the New Zealand example above. I’ll go ahead and respond to the rest of it here.

“Don’t grow”, “can’t grow” and "wont grow" WOW these are very big claims. “Don’t” and “cant” and “wont” are words that need to be used with a little more caution as it relates to this thread. Indeed a few references have been provided in this thread that give reason for pause on these claims. Let me ask the “don’t”, “cant”, “wont” group a quick question. Can sugarcane grow in a zero degree climate? (Yes it is a trick question, if you answer no you will be wrong.) I bring up the sugarcane scenario simply to highlight that a whole lot can be accomplished with just a little bit of know how.

You are right—I overstated my case when I said “don’t grow”, “can’t grow”, etc.

But I hope you’ll see that there is still some salvage value in my underlying point. I’ll take your word for it that sugarcane grows fine in zero-degree climates, but if a disputed text claimed that Eskimos grew sugarcane in the arctic, that would raise reasonable concerns about the historicity of the text, would it not?

In many instances the “Green Revolution” was really a reintroduction of methodologies that were thousands of years old and/or acceptance of agronomy findings from the early to mid-1800’s. The Romans and Chinese had standard agricultural practices that have only recently been reintroduced on a commercial scale, some of which would have made it plausible to grow crops in less than ideal climates. Did the Lehites have this sought of knowledge? Maybe, Maybe not.

That’s a fair point. Hypothetically, if the Lehites would have used their superior farming technology to grow wheat and barley in Mesoamerica, so that 400 years later (in the time of Zeniff) their decedents continued to do so, what are the chances that there would be physical evidence of wheat and barley having ever grown in the area? I’d speculate that after 400 years of successful cultivation that the grains would have adapted to the area and would have joined beans, squash, and maize as a recognizable staple.

Not enough is known about the westerners who failed to grow barley and wheat in the tropics and subtropics to draw any more than anecdotal conclusions because we really do not know “why” they failed. The move West no doubt introduced the crops to difficult climatic conditions, but climatic issues can be overcome through a number of means….

What we do know that there was a lot of success moving the grains of wheat and barley to new locations, as long as it was moved into a temperate zone. However, moving it into the tropics resulted in very little success. There is a clear correlation here, and it isn’t merely anecdotal to recognize that it has a lot to do with the fact that wheat and barley are native to temperate climates.

[ERayR]

I responded to the New Zealand example above. I’ll go ahead and respond to the rest of it here.

You are right—I overstated my case when I said “don’t grow”, “can’t grow”, etc.

But I hope you’ll see that there is still some salvage value in my underlying point. I’ll take your word for it that sugarcane grows fine in zero-degree climates, but if a disputed text claimed that Eskimos grew sugarcane in the arctic, that would raise reasonable concerns about the historicity of the text, would it not?

That’s a fair point. Hypothetically, if the Lehites would have used their superior farming technology to grow wheat and barley in Mesoamerica, so that 400 years later (in the time of Zeniff) their decedents continued to do so, what are the chances that there would be physical evidence of wheat and barley having ever grown in the area? I’d speculate that after 400 years of successful cultivation that the grains would have adapted to the area and would have joined beans, squash, and maize as a recognizable staple.

What we do know that there was a lot of success moving the grains of wheat and barley to new locations, as long as it was moved into a temperate zone. However, moving it into the tropics resulted in very little success. There is a clear correlation here, and it isn’t merely anecdotal to recognize that it has a lot to do with the fact that wheat and barley are native to temperate climates.

A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still. Come on it was not the silver bullet you thought it was.

[Analytics]

A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still. Come on it was not the silver bullet you thought it was.

How many times on this thread have I conceded that I overstated my case? What more do you want?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How many times on this thread have I conceded that I overstated my case? What more do you want?

Well....................

Maybe one more post stating that you overstated your case? Lol.

[ERayR]

How many times on this thread have I conceded that I overstated my case? What more do you want?

How many times did you tell me and others we didn't know what we were talking about because we didn't measure up to your sources PHD? OK your off the hook for now.

[Analytics]

Well....................

Maybe one more post stating that you overstated your case? Lol.

ERayR was right, I overstated my case.

[Analytics]

How many times did you tell me and others we didn't know what we were talking about because we didn't measure up to your sources PHD? OK your off the hook for now.

I'm sorry if I was rude. Thanks for chatting with me on this thread.

[ERayR]

ERayR was right, I overstated my case.

As stated above you are off the hook now.

[ERayR]

I'm sorry if I was rude. Thanks for chatting with me on this thread.

Your welcome we will do it again sometime.

[Kemara]

But I hope you’ll see that there is still some salvage value in my underlying point. I’ll take your word for it that sugarcane grows fine in zero-degree climates, but if a disputed text claimed that Eskimos grew sugarcane in the arctic, that would raise reasonable concerns about the historicity of the text, would it not?

I never said sugarcane “grows fine” in zero-degree climates, it can grow with a bit of know how, but it is not going to be much of a crop. My point in using this extreme example was to highlight that your claim of “cant” “wont” was wrong, a claim you now concede was incorrect.

There is a touch of strawman here, sugarcane grown in the Artic is beyond extreme and well outside the extreme of growing barley in the Mesoamerican climate. I do however get your point and it is a fair point, initial judgement would be toward it being nonsense. However with a little bit of digging, with a little bit more information, with a little bit more specialist knowledge and with a little less assumption who know's what we might find.

[i unsuccessfully tried to upload a photo of sugarcane growing in zero degree temperature, I feel somewhat robbed of the impact the picture might have had Calmoriah do you want a copy?]

That’s a fair point. Hypothetically, if the Lehites would have used their superior farming technology to grow wheat and barley in Mesoamerica...

Another hint of a strawman, I never mentioned anything about technology, I mentioned methodology i.e. “know how”, they are very different things. I am not suggesting the Lehite’s had any superior technological advancements, they were not driving around in combine harvesters, what I am suggesting is the possibility that they had knowledge, similar perhaps to that of the Romans or the Chinese at the time, that would make growing these crops in tropical conditions possible.

So that 400 years later (in the time of Zeniff) their decedents continued to do so, what are the chances that there would be physical evidence of wheat and barley having ever grown in the area?

I would imagine that there would be at least the same chance of their being archeological evidence of Ti Pore and Ti Para as this was grown in New Zealand since at least the 1300’s and possibly as early as the late 800’s.

I’d speculate that after 400 years of successful cultivation that the grains would have adapted to the area and would have joined beans, squash, and maize as a recognizable staple.

And what exactly do you base this speculation on? You do know that Diamonds work is not free of problems and it has a number of critis dont you?

What we do know that there was a lot of success moving the grains of wheat and barley to new locations, as long as it was moved into a temperate zone. However, moving it into the tropics resulted in very little success. There is a clear correlation here, and it isn’t merely anecdotal to recognize that it has a lot to do with the fact that wheat and barley are native to temperate climates.

It is nothing but anecdotal evidence if you cannot explain “why” the crops failed in tropical climates. The correlation itself gives no exacting explanation of “why”. Was it strictly a climate problem? Perhaps, perhaps not. Was the climate a part of the problem? I think I would be on safe ground saying yes. Was climate the only problem? Doubtful. You yourself state “it has a lot to do with….”, but “a lot to do with” still does not give us the whole story, it’s still a fair way from “why”.

Was the barley seed drilled? Was it grown with a companion crop? What was the mineralogical status of the soil? What was the physical status of the soil? Did they irrigate or rely on solely on rain? What were the physical farming methodologies? Timing of methodologies would be a major issue, do you know the timing sequences? Answer those and you will be starting to get somewhere. I have sugarcane growing clients in a region that is approximately 180 kilometers from another region with more sugarcane growing clients. Physical farming methods are different, irrigation requirements are different, fertilization requirements are different, native soil parameters are different, harvesting requirements are different, timing is different - a mere 180km. If a farmer moved from one region and did exactly the same things in the other region he wouldn’t have much of a crop and that is with “technological” advancements.

You state that "very little success" was achieved in tropical climates, so the implication is that there was in fact some success. What was the difference between the small minority of successes and large majority of failure? Was it the conditions that were different or a difference in methodologies? Luck maybe? Perhaps fate?

Would it surprise you to learn that I have a client in the tropical climate of Far North Queensland that grows Oats? You might say that Oats are not barley or wheat, but Oats are more difficult to grow in tropical conditions than barley or wheat. Ti Pore, Ti Pare, Yam, Gourd, Taro, Aute and Kumara are not native to the climate of New Zealand preferring a warmer climate, so why were the Maori able to grow them for hundreds of years? Hardier crop? Maybe, maybe not. Climatic differences were not as extreme? Maybe, maybe not. Methodology difference? Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any idea?

Edited August 26, 2011 by Kemara

[Calm]

[i unsuccessfully tried to upload a photo of sugarcane growing in zero degree temperature, I feel somewhat robbed of the impact the picture might have had Calmoriah do you want a copy?]

How did you know I was just going to do a search on this? I would love one and any info about it there is....I'm not a biologist or anything that it benefits me all that much to know, it just fascinates me what man can accomplish, gives me such great hope for and delight in people as well.....plus these kinds of things make great dinner conversation.

I'd give you a tribal smiley dance but I feel I may be gushing a bit too much.

So how do we do this? A link would be sufficient, but it sounds like you have personal copies not on some website. Can you email it?

[Analytics]

I never said sugarcane “grows fine” in zero-degree climates, it can grow with a bit of know how, but it is not going to be much of a crop. My point in using this extreme example was to highlight that your claim of “cant” “wont” was wrong, a claim you now concede was incorrect.

There is a touch of strawman here, sugarcane grown in the Artic is beyond extreme and well outside the extreme of growing barley in the Mesoamerican climate. I do however get your point and it is a fair point, initial judgement would be toward it being nonsense. However with a little bit of digging, with a little bit more information, with a little bit more specialist knowledge and with a little less assumption who know's what we might find.

I didn't intend it to be a strawman, but rather an exagerated example to make my point clear. It appears you got it.

Another hint of a strawman, I never mentioned anything about technology, I mentioned methodology i.e. “know how”, they are very different things.

My mistake.

And what exactly do you base this speculation on? You do know that Diamonds work is not free of problems and it has a number of critis dont you?

My speculation is based upon very little--that's why I said "I speculate that..." rather than, "the evidence suggests that..."

And yes, I know he has his critics.

It is nothing but anecdotal evidence if you cannot explain “why” the crops failed in tropical climates. The correlation itself gives no exacting explanation of “why”. Was it strictly a climate problem?

The correlation is statistical evidence that the geography is the causation. Looking for an exact "why" misses the point--the problem could have be anything (e.g. too much water, too little cold, the wrong seed, too little sunlight, etc.).Be the specifics what they may, the statistical correlation and its broad implications remain.

You state that "very little success" was achieved in tropical climates, so the implication is that there was in fact some success. What was the difference between the small minority of successes and large majority of failure? Was it the conditions that were different or a difference in methodologies? Luck maybe? Perhaps fate?

Would it surprise you to learn that I have a client in the tropical climate of Far North Queensland that grows Oats? You might say that Oats are not barley or wheat, but Oats are more difficult to grow in tropical conditions than barley or wheat. Ti Pore, Ti Pare, Yam, Gourd, Taro, Aute and Kumara are not native to the climate of New Zealand preferring a warmer climate, so why were the Maori able to grow them for hundreds of years? Hardier crop? Maybe, maybe not. Climatic differences were not as extreme? Maybe, maybe not. Methodology difference? Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any idea?

I don't know anything about it. But it seems to me that if there is absolutely no physical evidence that those plants ever grew there, and if growing them there is sufficiently difficult, then there is reason to question whether or not the verbal accounts we have are accurate. Is that unreasonable?

[Kemara]

Its late here in Australia and I really need to get to bed, so please excuse me if I ramble a little.

My speculation is based upon very little--that's why I said "I speculate that..." rather than, "the evidence suggests that..."

Which is why I asked what you base your "speculation" on, care to answer the question?

The correlation is statistical evidence that the geography is the causation.

Geography is certainly a factor, without doubt, but you are assuming that climate is the only cause and this assumption is far too simplistic. By not taking taking into account any number of other possible factors your statistical position would need to be very low. What was the difference, what are the parameters, between the failures and the little successes you mentioned previously? How are the little successes factored into your statistical evaluation?

Looking for an exact "why" misses the point...

Wanting to establish the exact reason why a problem occurs is missing the point? Well I suppose it is if you dont care how statistically low your position is.

...the problem could have been anything...

How can you possibly say that geography is the causation and then in the next breath say the problem could have been anything?

Be the specifics what they may, the statistical correlation and its broad implications remain.

So what is the statistical probability of an issue, that in your words, could have been anything? The sun does not rise because the rooster crows.

I don't know anything about it. But it seems to me that if there is absolutely no physical evidence that those plants ever grew there, and if growing them there is sufficiently difficult, then there is reason to question whether or not the verbal accounts we have are accurate. Is that unreasonable?

What we have is absolutely no archeological evidence of any place where two crops were ever cultivated and only very sparse evidence of the most widely grown crop. In my opinion it would be semi-reasonable to question the oral history of the Maori if that was all we had, but we dont, as previously mentioned we have a written record, we have eye witness accounts from early European settlers right up to the early 1800's, not only did they see it growing in various regions of New Zealand, they ate it. There is no serious question as to wether these crops were cultivated or not.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Kemara

[Robert F. Smith]

Would it surprise you to learn that I have a client in the tropical climate of Far North Queensland that grows Oats? You might say that Oats are not barley or wheat, but Oats are more difficult to grow in tropical conditions than barley or wheat. Ti Pore, Ti Pare, Yam, Gourd, Taro, Aute and Kumara are not native to the climate of New Zealand preferring a warmer climate, so why were the Maori able to grow them for hundreds of years? Hardier crop? Maybe, maybe not. Climatic differences were not as extreme? Maybe, maybe not. Methodology difference? Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any idea?

Since you mention it, one could point out that the sweet potato (kumara) was grown throughout Polynesia, South America, the Carribean, and Central America in pre-Columbian times. It was well-adapted and may even be one of the cultigens mentioned in Mosiah 9:9. Wiki link.

Hey, what if that is the meaning of Cumorah? Sweet-Potato-Hill.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

What we do know that there was a lot of success moving the grains of wheat and barley to new locations, as long as it was moved into a temperate zone. However, moving it into the tropics resulted in very little success. There is a clear correlation here, and it isn’t merely anecdotal to recognize that it has a lot to do with the fact that wheat and barley are native to temperate climates.

I guess the main point which you have repeatedly missed is that the highlands of Guatemala (altiplano "high-plains"), where ordinary barley and wheat can and have been cultivated, and which Sorenson argues is the Nephite land of first inheritance, actually has a temperate climate due to the altitude. Being in a tropical or sub-tropical zone has nothing to do with it. Such local variations make many types of cultivation possible.

That barley was being cultivated in Northern Mexico and in Arizona in pre-Columbian times ought to give us a hint, since the high cultures in that area (esp. the Hohokam) were heavily influence by, and actively traded with Mesoamerica. Visit Casa Grande in Arizona sometime and examine the fantastic museum pieces (it is a National Park) -- there is even a standard Mesoamerican-style ball-court there, and imported rubber balls.

[Analytics]

Geography is certainly a factor, without doubt, but you are assuming that climate is the only cause and this assumption is far too simplistic. By not taking taking into account any number of other possible factors your statistical position would need to be very low. What was the difference, what are the parameters, between the failures and the little successes you mentioned previously? How are the little successes factored into your statistical evaluation?

Wanting to establish the exact reason why a problem occurs is missing the point? Well I suppose it is if you dont care how statistically low your position is.

How can you possibly say that geography is the causation and then in the next breath say the problem could have been anything?

So what is the statistical probability of an issue, that in your words, could have been anything? The sun does not rise because the rooster crows.

You seem to concede that there is a statistical correlation between geographical locations and whether people before the 20th Century were successful in cultivating barley and wheat. There are many known reasons why growing wheat and barley in the tropics is challenging. Any of those reasons or all of them could be the proximate cause of the historical failure. I’m claiming that regardless of what the underlying cause is, it is correlated with geographical location. Thus, geographical location can serve as a proxy for the unspecified, underlying cause.

What we have is absolutely no archeological evidence of any place where two crops were ever cultivated and only very sparse evidence of the most widely grown crop. In my opinion it would be semi-reasonable to question the oral history of the Maori if that was all we had, but we dont, as previously mentioned we have a written record, we have eye witness accounts from early European settlers right up to the early 1800's, not only did they see it growing in various regions of New Zealand, they ate it. There is no serious question as to wether these crops were cultivated or not.

I don’t know the details about how difficult it is to grow these crops grow in New Zealand compared to how difficult it is to grow wheat and barley grow in Mesoamerica. And I don’t know how extensive the search for physical evidence of these crops have been in New Zealand, compared to the search for physical evidence of wheat and barley is in Mesoamerica. You provide a decent example for how a major crop can leave only a small archeological trace, but I’m not sure how robustly this example applies to Mesoamerica.

[Analytics]

I guess the main point which you have repeatedly missed is that the highlands of Guatemala (altiplano "high-plains"), where ordinary barley and wheat can and have been cultivated, and which Sorenson argues is the Nephite land of first inheritance, actually has a temperate climate due to the altitude. Being in a tropical or sub-tropical zone has nothing to do with it. Such local variations make many types of cultivation possible.

I've conceeded over and over and over that wheat and barley grow there. Please let me know how many times you'd like me to repeat it, and I gladly will.

In fact, I specifically asked how the regions where barley grows correlates with Sorenson's map of where the Nephites lived. Since you've looked at this, are you claiming that all of the specific places in Sorenson's where wheat and barley are mentioned are the specific places where wheat and barley actually grow? If so, that is certainly a decent hit for his model.

That barley was being cultivated in Northern Mexico and in Arizona in pre-Columbian times ought to give us a hint, since the high cultures in that area (esp. the Hohokam) were heavily influence by, and actively traded with Mesoamerica. Visit Casa Grande in Arizona sometime and examine the fantastic museum pieces (it is a National Park) -- there is even a standard Mesoamerican-style ball-court there, and imported rubber balls.

"Little barley" seems like a strange crop that they'd mess around with in Mesoamerica, where so many superior food sources are readily available. Its use was displaced in the Eastern Agricultural Complex by maize, so it's hard to see why its use would be exported to Mesoamerica.

What's your theory regarding the Arizona/Mesoamerican connection? Little Barley is from the eastern section of the U.S. I know you aren't claiming that Zeniff stopped by the eastern U.S. on his way to Guatemla, picked up some little barley seed, grew it successfully in the highlands of Guatemala for 200 years, and then exported it to Arizona when connections with the Hohokam began.

[LeSellers]

"Little barley" seems like a strange crop that they'd mess around with in Mesoamerica, where so many superior food sources are readily available. Its use was displaced in the Eastern Agricultural Complex by maize, so it's hard to see why its use would be exported to Mesoamerica.

While seed size may be problematic, it is not without precedent. Amaranth was widely cultivated and eaten, it was a fundamental part of many religious ceremonies, which was why the Catholic padres (with the help of the conquistadores), eliminated it from the diet of the Indians. I don't know how large the seeds are in "Little Barley", but I know the amaranth seed is very small, about sewing pin head sized. It's not tough to thresh, but it takes a lot of work to get a sizable return. But they did it. And so have I.

Lehi