Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[William Schryver]

I acknowledge that the age of the images of horses at Newspaper Rock is disputed. But it is not disputed.because it is obviously more recent in terms of patina, etc. The horse images are consistent with the other ancient petroglyphs. Their age is disputed for no other reason than the DOGMA that there were no horses in America prior to 1500 AD!

That is the point I'm trying to make here. Dogma, not objective analysis of the site in question, dictates the conclusion. Were there no dogma to serve, the horse images would be acknowledged as being just as ancient in origin as the other typical Anasazi images on the panel.

[Jesterss]

I acknowledge that the age of the images of horses at Newspaper Rock is disputed. But it is not disputed.because it is obviously more recent in terms of patina, etc. The horse images are consistent with the other ancient petroglyphs. Their age is disputed for no other reason than the DOGMA that there were no horses in America prior to 1500 AD! That is the point I'm trying to make here. Dogma, not objective analysis of the site in question, dictates the conclusion. Were there no dogma to serve, the horse images would be acknowledged as being just as ancient in origin as the other typical Anasazi images on the panel.

What is the reasoning for the mayans calling the colombian horses tzimin chac instead of just tzimin? or some other name? refer to the

Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

I acknowledge that the age of the images of horses at Newspaper Rock is disputed. But it is not disputed.because it is obviously more recent in terms of patina, etc. The horse images are consistent with the other ancient petroglyphs. Their age is disputed for no other reason than the DOGMA that there were no horses in America prior to 1500 AD! That is the point I'm trying to make here. Dogma, not objective analysis of the site in question, dictates the conclusion. Were there no dogma to serve, the horse images would be acknowledged as being just as ancient in origin as the other typical Anasazi images on the panel.

What is the reasoning for the mayans calling the colombian horses tzimin chac instead of just tzimin? or some other name? refer to post #28 by zakuska

[J Green]

Now tell me more about the translation process. Who is the "translator"? What does the introduction of two unknown animals mean for the nature of the process? In what way are my culture and knowledge of language limiting or influencing this process?

Bravo, Cinepro. Looks like you're finally starting to realize that what we assume about the translation process directly impacts the subject at hand.

BTW, when I referenced the D&C injunction to "study it out in your mind" I thought it would be transparent that this means after the Spirit has helped you to understand the basic meaning of the text in question, not before. It doesn't make much sense before, if you don't know the language. So have at the ancient Japanese all you want, just don't include me in the studying part.

Cheers

[Zakuska]

I acknowledge that the age of the images of horses at Newspaper Rock is disputed. But it is not disputed.because it is obviously more recent in terms of patina, etc. The horse images are consistent with the other ancient petroglyphs. Their age is disputed for no other reason than the DOGMA that there were no horses in America prior to 1500 AD!

That is the point I'm trying to make here. Dogma, not objective analysis of the site in question, dictates the conclusion. Were there no dogma to serve, the horse images would be acknowledged as being just as ancient in origin as the other typical Anasazi images on the panel.

I think this article also demonstrates the Phenominone you are higlighting. RE: Noris horse bone found in cape code.

"As to the horse bone that you describe, it is very hard for me to understand the chronological problem, since I cannot imagine what basis Professor Hooton could have had for his estimate of age from the bone itself. If the horse was a native American horse, it clearly could not have been older than 1521 A.D.- that is, unless you think the Norsemen brought horses to America with them. If the horse was native, no date younger than about 8000 B.C. would be guessed by a paleontologist, but in any case no 'test' of the bone itself could give the age correctly. Some bones have been dated in a relative sense by the fluorine method, but this tells us only whether one fossil in a deposit is of the same age as the others or is perhaps intrusive. By this method, Swanscombe man was shown to be contemporary with the other vertebrates in the same deposit, whereas Piltdown man was first suspected to be a forgery because the fluorine analyses did not agree with those of the other fossils.

"Radio-carbon dating of bone is simply not practical unless the bone was charred before burial. There is very little organic carbon in bone, and what there is, is far too easily replaced by carbon from the groundwater after burial. Any bones that have been 'dated’ by radio-carbon were either charcoal when dated, as in the case of the Folsom site, or else they were dated indirectly by association with charcoal or plant remains.

"In view of all this I fear your friend, Mr. Powell, is stuck with a curio and that no one will want to take on the horse bone for scientific tests."¹⁰

http://www.bwpowell....us/follins.html

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think this article also demonstrates the Phenominone you are higlighting. RE: Noris horse bone found in cape code.

http://www.bwpowell....us/follins.html

That is sad. It's like they are afraid of what they may find. That is interesting.

One other thing, if this was brought up on any other site that was not LDS, would Jester have an issue with the dating?

Edited October 7, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Zakuska]

Here's a recent horse bone find in Alaska... not sure if there is a carbon date yet.

http://www.polartrec...nals/2011-08-07

Tim holds the leg bone once it was removed from the site. The bone will be sent to a lab for carbon dating.

Video:

http://community.adn.com/node/157217

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

Jesterss, this is absurd. You simply aren't accepting what everyone has given you simply because you don't want to accept it, and that's only because it gives credibility to the Book of Mormon account, and I'm sure you don't want that because that would give support to our belief that Joseph Smith might have actually been telling the truth. I mean, come on. First, you absurdly imply that Mormons may have forged the Newspaper Rock carvings, and then you claim that the carvings may have been "tampered with" by someone else because they look "fresh" to you, when archaeologists are in agreement that the carvings are indeed ancient. Seriously?!

Please. You lost this argument before it even started.

[Calm]

I would be surprised to find a petroglyph that was viewed as both a horse and preColumbian by experts. If there was one, surely the current consensus of horses being brought over by the Spanish would be debated much more than it is....

The only way the consensus will be changed is through carbon dating of horse bones, imo. We will just have to be patient.

Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[J Green]

Hi, Uncertain.

We seem to be talking past each other to a certain extent. My apologies for that. We have two basic areas of disagreement. One is at the point of contact and the other is at the point of translation. And since we continue to discuss a rather specific scenario, let me once again just give the disclaimer that I'm not sure that I buy the scenario. I buy its plausibility, among other theories. But that is all.

1. Contact

Under the scenario in question, the Nephites arrive in the new world and identify various animals using the classifications in their dietary/legal code. They deliberately use the old word term for "horse" and not the new world term because to them this is a horse, based on its foot structure, etc. We both agree that is a form of loan-shifting. So far so good.

Where we disagree is what this means. You say that this has expanded the original term to mean both a horse and a tapir. Two distinct definitions for a single term. I disagree. It could very well mean that there is still only one defintion and not two. I.e., the Nephites saw this animal as a horse based on various indicators like foot structure and called it a horse for that very reason. We call it loan-shifting from a linguistic perch in the 21st century based on modern classifications. But to those who wrote the record, this is the same animal. It is the same in Isaiah as it is in Nephi and Alma. Not two definitions for one word. It's the same definiition.

2. Translation

Where the distinction above becomes important is during the translation, where the main thrust of your objection lies. You have assumed that JS or God should have know the distinction even if the Nephites didn't and made a change in the translation. I disagree with this assumption. And aside from the obvious difficulty of whehter or not JS knew what a tapir was and could make that kind of change, I think to really make your case you would have to demonstrate that this type of thing occurs elsewhere in the translation. I.e., you would need to demonstrate that JS corrects the taxonomy in this fashion as a regular part of the process. But the evidence so far as we have it is in the other direction. There are many modern and ancient words for bodies of still water, but we only have "sea" in the BoM. There are (and were anciently) many words for running water, but we only get "river." In other words, the evidence points to JS not doing the type of thing you want him to have done in this instance. The evidence basically points to him simply carrying over exactly what the original authors said, regardless of what the modern taxonomies of water would be. The move is toward a restricted vocabulary. So when we look for other areas to verify your assumptions we don't find them.

My assumptions lie in a process where Joseph uses his own words to transfer the original authors' meaning. This assumption finds some peripheral evidence throughout the BoM in the way other things are transferred, including most taxonomies and words like curelom and cumom. In short, the Nephites called whatever it was a horse and meant a horse (not a horse + something else), and JS simply carried it over in the translation like he did with everything else.

Cheers

[Zakuska]

I would be surprised to find a petroglyph that was viewed as both a horse and preColumbian by experts. If there was one, surely the current consensus of horses being brought over by the Spanish would be debated much more than it is....

The only way the consensus will be changed is through carbon dating of horse bones, imo. We will just have to be patient.

The problem with this is... when a Carbon date is found that falls outside the expected. The data is labeled invalid by default and every excuse in the word is proposed to explain away the finding.

[Hamba Tuhan]

How many educated readers first pick up the BOM and quickly reject it's claim to being an authentic ancient record that teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ because the BOM mentions anachronistic animals?

For what it's worth, as one who spends his days working with contact texts, I find that the Book of Mormon as translated reads precisely the way it should if it really were an ancient document produced by people who originated in one cultural/linguistic context and then relocated to another, bringing a foundational text with them. Too bad the divine translator/Joseph Smith couldn't come up with a translation which would satisfy all 'educated readers.'

[Calm]

The problem with this is... when a Carbon date is found that falls outside the expected. The data is labeled invalid by default and every excuse in the word is proposed to explain away the finding.

If there are enough of these, eventually the consensus will change.

[Zakuska]

If there are enough of these, eventually the consensus will change.

So when does it reach critical mass? We already have quite a few that challenge the institution.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

So when does it reach critical mass? We already have quite a few that challenge the institution.

I think it will more likely happen that the date will move later and later rather than one big leap.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You say that this has expanded the original term to mean both a horse and a tapir. Two distinct definitions for a single term. I disagree. It could very well mean that there is still only one defintion and not two. I.e., the Nephites saw this animal as a horse based on various indicators like foot structure and called it a horse for that very reason. We call it loan-shifting from a linguistic perch in the 21st century based on modern classifications. But to those who wrote the record, this is the same animal. It is the same in Isaiah as it is in Nephi and Alma. Not two definitions for one word. It's the same definiition.

Thanks for spelling this out so clearly, J Green. This is the very point I'd hoped to make next. IF the Nephites called a tapir or some other animal a horse--and I'm with you on this one in that I don't feel any need to advocate for this particular loan-shift--it was because, to them, it was a horse. In similar fashion, Jesuits resident in the islands of the Pacific in the sixteenth century called bananas figs (figos in Portuguese), not because the word had picked up a second distinct meaning for them but because they saw bananas as figs. In like fashion, they called toasted sago cakes bread because, to them, it was. And they mentioned that certain rivers were dangerous due to the large numbers of lizards because they did not see or apply a late-modern Linnaean classification to crocodiles. Crocodiles were just one more variety of lizard.

[Zakuska]

I think it will more likely happen that the date will move later and later rather than one big leap.

sedaDNA looks very promising in this respect...

Comparison with the Fossil Record.

Currently, the youngest macrofossil ages for mammoth and horse north of the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets in northwestern North America are 11,500 ± 160 and 12,480 ± 80 ¹⁴C yr BP, respectively (4). These correspond to calibrated (calendar year) age ranges of 13,100–13,710 and 14,180–14,960 yr BP at the 95% confidence interval. The recovery of mammoth and horse DNA from the 10,500- to 7,600-year-old sediments suggests that both species survived in interior Alaska for at least 2,600 and 3,700 years longer, respectively, than established from macrofossil surveys north of the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets.

We are confident that DNA leaching cannot explain the presence of mammoth and horse sedaDNA at the Stevens Village exposure. No evidence of DNA leaching been found under permafrost settings, despite several investigations (15, 18–20), and for mammoth and horse DNA to be recovered from sediments several millennia younger than the youngest macrofossil remains from mainland Alaska/Yukon would require the DNA to have migrated more than 8 m upward through frozen sediments, without leaving any traces behind in the intervening strata (Fig. 1).

Our sedaDNA ages for mammoth and horse are also notably younger, by ≈1,300 and 2,300 years respectively, than the youngest fossil remains found to the south of these ice sheets (mammoth: 10,350 ± 130 ¹⁴C yr BP or 11,770–12,650 yr BP; horse: 10,870 ± 45 ¹⁴C yr BP or 12,815–12,910 yr BP) (32). The latter macrofossils are unlikely to include the last members of either species, which underlines the critical significance of the sedaDNA approach for detecting rare, late-surviving populations of mammoth and horse in different parts of North America.

It may be significant that these late surviving populations were found in the Yukon Flats area of central Alaska. The wide braidplain that characterizes this low-relief landscape in interior Alaska favors a disturbance regime, with the margins of shifting river bars supporting colonizing plants that would have provided high-quality forage, and aeolian inputs maintaining soil nutrients. This type of disturbance landscape has been hypothesized as a means to maintain mammoth-steppe habitat (33).

http://www.pnas.org/...6/52/22352.full

Edited October 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[J Green]

Thanks for spelling this out so clearly, J Green. This is the very point I'd hoped to make next. IF the Nephites called a tapir or some other animal a horse--and I'm with you on this one in that I don't feel any need to advocate for this particular loan-shift--it was because, to them, it was a horse. In similar fashion, Jesuits resident in the islands of the Pacific in the sixteenth century called bananas figs (figos in Portuguese), not because the word had picked up a second distinct meaning for them but because they saw bananas as figs. In like fashion, they called toasted sago cakes bread because, to them, it was. And they mentioned that certain rivers were dangerous due to the large numbers of lizards because they did not see or apply a late-modern Linnaean classification to crocodiles. Crocodiles were just one more variety of lizard.

Great points, as always, Hamba.

Thanks for bringing your considerable experience and expertise to bear on the conversation.

[Jesterss]

Jesterss, this is absurd. You simply aren't accepting what everyone has given you simply because you don't want to accept it, and that's only because it gives credibility to the Book of Mormon account, and I'm sure you don't want that because that would give support to our belief that Joseph Smith might have actually been telling the truth. I mean, come on. First, you absurdly imply that Mormons may have forged the Newspaper Rock carvings, and then you claim that the carvings may have been "tampered with" by someone else because they look "fresh" to you, when archaeologists are in agreement that the carvings are indeed ancient. Seriously?!

Please. You lost this argument before it even started.

Seriously?

You never seem to grasp the deep aspects of conversation do you... constantly making false accusations on your proposed idea of someone else's beliefs..

1. The BLM site itself says that there has been vandalism done to the Utah rocks.. so that is factual..

2. If you look at the horse with the archer on its back, it looks extremely light, anyone would take that as to mean more recent and not as ancient, just to say these carvings are ancient does not necessitate the idea that they are all old..

3. The carvings cannot be accurately dated...In fact, there are even more recent markings in the cape cod area where the knights templar actually came to america first around 1362... So how can you date the Utah rocks but not those? You can't!

Rock Carvings can only be dated by the idea of "patina" existing on them, but that's not even full proof, we don't know the rate of decay and it can produce false positives. So then we go off of subject matter. Which as even mormons have pointed out, isn't very substantial, and that I would agree with as well..

[Jesterss]

That is sad. It's like they are afraid of what they may find. That is interesting.

One other thing, if this was brought up on any other site that was not LDS, would Jester have an issue with the dating?

As I already stated, it is believed that the nights templar actually landed in america around 1362.. so of course I have no issue.. doesn't predate that.. the idea that you believe the mayans had horses that differed from the tapir is what I disagree with

[Uncertain]

2. Translation

Where the distinction above becomes important is during the translation, where the main thrust of your objection lies. You have assumed that JS or God should have know the distinction even if the Nephites didn't and made a change in the translation. I disagree with this assumption. And aside from the obvious difficulty of whehter or not JS knew what a tapir was and could make that kind of change, I think to really make your case you would have to demonstrate that this type of thing occurs elsewhere in the translation. I.e., you would need to demonstrate that JS corrects the taxonomy in this fashion as a regular part of the process. But the evidence so far as we have it is in the other direction. There are many modern and ancient words for bodies of still water, but we only have "sea" in the BoM. There are (and were anciently) many words for running water, but we only get "river." In other words, the evidence points to JS not doing the type of thing you want him to have done in this instance. The evidence basically points to him simply carrying over exactly what the original authors said, regardless of what the modern taxonomies of water would be. The move is toward a restricted vocabulary. So when we look for other areas to verify your assumptions we don't find them.

My assumptions lie in a process where Joseph uses his own words to transfer the original authors' meaning. This assumption finds some peripheral evidence throughout the BoM in the way other things are transferred, including most taxonomies and words like curelom and cumom. In short, the Nephites called whatever it was a horse and meant a horse (not a horse + something else), and JS simply carried it over in the translation like he did with everything else.

Cheers

I think you accurately and fairly state my position. It appears to me most if not all cases of loan-shifting I am aware of the people doing the loan-shifting may have used the same name to refer to two different animals but they did not view those animals as identical. Do you know of any counter examples? For example the Mayans may have used their word for tapir to refer to horse but they clearly did not view tapirs as identical animals to horses. If indeed the Nephites followed this general pattern than yes they may have used their old world term for horse to refer to tapirs but they did not view them as identical animals since obviously they are different animals. If indeed they did not view them as identical animals then the Nephite term for horse expanded in meaning to mean two distinct and different animals horse and tapir similar to how the Mayan term for tapir expanded in meaning to refer to two different animals. In which case the word on the plates would have in fact have been the Nephite term for tapir and per the argument you outline above a correct translation into English would have been tapir. Which brings us to your first point.

Hi, Uncertain.

We seem to be talking past each other to a certain extent. My apologies for that. We have two basic areas of disagreement. One is at the point of contact and the other is at the point of translation. And since we continue to discuss a rather specific scenario, let me once again just give the disclaimer that I'm not sure that I buy the scenario. I buy its plausibility, among other theories. But that is all.

1. Contact

Under the scenario in question, the Nephites arrive in the new world and identify various animals using the classifications in their dietary/legal code. They deliberately use the old word term for "horse" and not the new world term because to them this is a horse, based on its foot structure, etc. We both agree that is a form of loan-shifting. So far so good.

Where we disagree is what this means. You say that this has expanded the original term to mean both a horse and a tapir. Two distinct definitions for a single term. I disagree. It could very well mean that there is still only one defintion and not two. I.e., the Nephites saw this animal as a horse based on various indicators like foot structure and called it a horse for that very reason. We call it loan-shifting from a linguistic perch in the 21st century based on modern classifications. But to those who wrote the record, this is the same animal. It is the same in Isaiah as it is in Nephi and Alma. Not two definitions for one word. It's the same definiition.

I can certainly understand the Nephites using the old world term for horse to refer to tapir due to religious reasons. I am not sure how reasonable it is to suppose this meant the Nephites viewed tapirs as identical animals to horses. In fact it is my understanding that while Jews may assign different animals to different categories based on their dietary/legal codes they did not view all animals in a given category as identical animals. For example observant Jews would place both camels and hares in the forbidden category because they either do not have a cloven hoof or they do not chew their cud. But they certainly do not view then as identical animals. Simply because different animals are placed into a given classification based on religious or legal considerations does not mean those animals were viewed as identical. Perhaps a better example is comparing the horse with the camel both of them would be in the forbidden category since they do not have cloven hoofs. But Jews certainly recognized them as two different distinct animals. I must say purely based on looks camels resemble horses about as much as tapirs resemble horses and certainly Jews recognize camels are different animals than horses. I would also add if indeed Nephites viewed tapirs as perfectly interchangeable with horses than any reference to a horse could legitimately be translated as tapir since to a Nephite there was no difference between the two. In which case all the old word references to horses in the BOM i.e.(Isaiah) could legitimately be translated as tapirs. I personally view this as an absurd conclusion. Now all this being said if indeed the Nephites viewed horses as identical animals to tapirs than I agree with you that this does solve the translation problem I point out. All I can say is if to salvage the loan-shifting argument you must assume Nephites thought tapirs were identical animals to horses when clearly they are very different animals my work here is done .

I am going to be out of town this weekend and will not be able to reply. In any case I think we have made our respective positions clear. I would be interested in reading you reply to my above post but I will likely not respond. It's been a great discussion have a nice weekend!

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 8, 2011 by Uncertain

[William Schryver]

Here are two more images of horses from Newspaper Rock:

ETA: There are later, 19th or early 20th century etchings apparent in both photos. All of the horse images are consistent with the ancient etchings surrounding them. To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that the horse images are of modern origin, although it is assumed that they must come after 1500 AD, simply because of the persistent dogma that there weren't horses in the Americas until then. Even so, it is believed that the other etchings on the panel date to Anasazi times, prior to 1500 AD.

Edited October 8, 2011 by William Schryver

[Calm]

The patina on the horse definitely looks darker to me than the JB + LF writing or the crossed out markings above. However, it's hard to judge from a photo.

The circle on a cross next to the true lovers looks the darkest to me.

Edited October 8, 2011 by calmoriah

[William Schryver]

The 19th and 20th century etchings are clearly scratched on the panel, apparently with metallic tools, whereas the horse images (and the other images) are consistent with the ancient practice of chipping them on the panel with stone tools. You can see the distinctive chipping pattern on all of the ancient images, including the horse images.

Edited October 8, 2011 by William Schryver

[Calm]

The 19th and 20th century etchings are clearly scratched on the panel, apparently with metallic tools, whereas the horse images (and the other images) are consistent with the ancient practice of chipping them on the panel with stone tools. You can see the distinctive chipping pattern on all of the ancient images, including the horse images.

Now that you've brought it to my attention, I can easily see this.