John Sorenson Meso-American Setting

[Freedom]

Actually, ancient watering holes are sometimes prime places for finding skeletal (or even well preserved remains of the whole body of humans or animals). This is because such watering areas can be associated with marshes or bogs, and the chemicals in bogs act to preserve or "pickle" bodies. In other cases, as at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, animals go for a drink, get stuck, and are fully preserved for eons in the tar. The same applies to insects trapped in amber. Much further north (Alaska & Siberia), we have the bodies of fresh frozen mammoths and mastodons as glaciers recede. In each case, DNA testing can be successfully done.

Archeology isn't only done in towns and villages. My paleoethnobotany teacher at UCLA, for example, had a project in which she investigated the chinampas remaining from ancient Mexico (see http://www.chinampas.info/ ), and such research on ancient agriculture is very important.

From my reading, this does not apply well to tropical climates because the animals get consumed within weeks. Although I have no doubt there are some projects outside cities, they are rare and your example is not of a random search in the wilderness, but of known farming settlements. I do not reject these findings, I am just pointing out that the critics are asking for evidence that is not readily available in the location we are discussing. It is not like Rome where people are digging up the ground all the time to build houses and finding ruins or ancient animals. Critics are demanding old world accomplishments for the Book of Mormon.

[Freedom]

The bones Sorenson talks about (there are sevearl instances) are found in a water hole in Yucupan and inside several caves in Mexico. That's why I was wondering. I suppose the bones in the caves could have been distrubed (though considering they are found inside of pottery, this seems unlikely), but I really doubt the ones in the water holes were. =p

Not trying to shoot ya. Just trying to ssay that Sorenson's examples... sort of don't apply to what other people have said about the subject. Or somethinge like that, thanks to the unusual places where they were found.

I have read a lot of Sorensen's material. When it is confirmed in peer reviewed literature than we can get excited. Nevertheless, what he has are very few samples and they are just now coming to light. i want to know why, if he has this evidence, the scholars who's expertise is in this area (such as Clark) are not writing papers. there are few sites that are being studied. As soon as word gets out of a discovery, criminals jump in and loot the place. If he can establish carbon dating and if he is referencing non-mormon scientific data to prove his point this will be quite exciting. Nevertheless, we are years away from having even a vague picture of what these civilizations were like.

[cursor]

This thread gives me the chance to ask: Does anyone know if John Sorenson will be making any adjustments to his geography in the forth-coming Mormon's Codex? I was specifically hoping Cursor could offer some insight on this question, since he has seen and worked on the manuscript.

I have read the manuscript (2008 version ... it has since been modified substantially). Rather than offer my opinion [on the older version], I will ask my father directly for feedback. From my understanding, Dad's perspective has changed only in very minor details..

[nealr]

I have read the manuscript (2008 version ... it has since been modified substantially). Rather than offer my opinion [on the older version], I will ask my father directly for feedback. From my understanding, Dad's perspective has changed only in very minor details..

Thanks, I really appreciate it.

[Robert F. Smith]

The bones Sorenson talks about (there are sevearl instances) are found in a water hole in Yucupan and inside several caves in Mexico. That's why I was wondering. I suppose the bones in the caves could have been distrubed (though considering they are found inside of pottery, this seems unlikely), but I really doubt the ones in the water holes were. =p

Not trying to shoot ya. Just trying to ssay that Sorenson's examples... sort of don't apply to what other people have said about the subject. Or somethinge like that, thanks to the unusual places where they were found.

The bones Sorenson refers to come from a number of places in the Americas and were excavated and dated by non-Mormon scholars.. The same applies to the metals which have been found by scholars earlier than they are supposed to exist by accepted reckoning. His book will report on all that in detail with full documentation. What truly astonishes me is that Mike Coe, who is fully aware of the tons of worked iron found in Olmec sites, never bothers to mention such facts -- acting as though he is suffering early senility or simply is in denial because the Book of Mormon is at issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have read a lot of Sorensen's material. When it is confirmed in peer reviewed literature than we can get excited. Nevertheless, what he has are very few samples and they are just now coming to light. i want to know why, if he has this evidence, the scholars who's expertise is in this area (such as Clark) are not writing papers. there are few sites that are being studied. As soon as word gets out of a discovery, criminals jump in and loot the place. If he can establish carbon dating and if he is referencing non-mormon scientific data to prove his point this will be quite exciting. Nevertheless, we are years away from having even a vague picture of what these civilizations were like.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I suggest that you have a look at Mike Coe, et al., Atlas of Ancient America (Oxford: Equinox/Facts on File, 1986), as well as John Sorenson, ed., Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo: FARMS Research Press, 1998), for a very clear picture of what such civilizations were like. Both are beautiful coffee table books with wonderful photos and illustrations.

As to the items being published by Sorenson, many of them have been in the professional excavation reports for years, and of course they are non-Mormon. Sorenson has been at this since the late 1940s and is now 88 years old. Very few scholars have mastered the full range of excavations and the relative as well as absolute chronologies. Sorenson was already publishing professionally in that area in the 1950s. Very few scholars are able to synthesize all the data.

[cursor]

Thanks, Robert, for pointing to Atlas of Ancient America. I bought a copy for myself online just seconds ago.

[MormonMason]

Robert

They also used "qedem"

http://www.ancient-h...7_eternity.html

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun".

And Here

http://www.ancient-h..._brown-time.pdf

depends on where you put the vowels and which ones you use.

Sorenson preferred your definition in order to justify his rotation of the directions. However, even you know the sun rises in the east, not the north.

Larry P

Larry, be careful not to rely too tightly on the information from this website. The problems with that fellow's position are manifold. (A number of Hebraists flatly reject his hypotheses).

A major problem can be seen in how he uses his Ancient Hebrew font to represent his postulated orthography and meaning of the word, and the number of characters in that (or any other given) word. Ancient Hebrew did not use vowel letters. Nor did Hebrew before about 1000 BCE. If you look carefully at his representation at the end of the link you posted, you will see the waw as a vowel letter in the representation before the definition.

Qedem means "east," "front," or "ancient." I am not sure where the idea of "direction of the rising sun" came from. Do you have a reference for that?

[poulsenll]

Yes

Numbers

2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

A google search on "qedem rising sun" returns numerous references to a relationship of qedem with the rising sun including the above from Strong;s dictionary.

Larry P

Edited September 30, 2012 by poulsenll

[MormonMason]

Yes

Numbers

2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

A google search on "qedem rising sun" returns numerous references to a relationship of qedem with the rising sun including the above from Strong;s dictionary.

Larry P

Looking at the Hebrew I don't see it. Qedem is a separate word that is followed by a word that clarifies and expands upon the meaning of qedem, the root word being zerach. This latter word means "emergence" or "shining" and is at places used to refer to the rising of the Sun. Qedem is a general term that would require clarification because it by itself does not carry the meaning of "the direction of the rising sun."

If the meaning you describe were inherent in the meaning of the word itself I do not think that it would have been necessary to specify the meaning with following word. It is similar to how the word that we commonly translate as eternal or everlasting is used. By itself, it can reference any amount of time. The word must be made plural or have the word repeated to express a very long time. Even then, it does not carry the meaning of "boundless time" very often attached to it because it also is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe things that had more or less known beginnings.

The grammar of the passage you quoted indicates a general direction, qualified by a specific direction within that range of "eastward." It would make little sense for the passage to mean "in the direction of the Sun toward the sunrise." But, that is what it would read like if the actual meaning of qedem were "in the direction of the sun."

I will look at other passages in a bit, as I find the time (not an easy proposition as I am away from my Even-Shoshan right now), but I suspect I will find the same thing as in the above passage.

Seriously, though, there is a lot of crap on the Internet about the meaning of this or that word but a lot of it turns out to be nothing more than speculative garbage bandied about by those who know little to nothing on the subject and who rely on modern folk etymologies to make their points. This has grown worse over the years.

I will check Google and see if any of this material fits this situation or is actually quality enough work to take seriously. I will state at the outset that Strong's is crap. It is out of date and sometimes flat out wrong. It is best to compare the usages and definitions in that dictionary with BDB and/or HALOT, or even DCH (and/or its smaller sibling, CDCH) whenever possible to be sure you aren't being led astray by faulty information.

[poulsenll]

MM

From my point of view, it is not nescesary for qedem to have the meaning of "toward the rising sun", it is only nescesary to realize that the word for east was at least recognized as associated with sunrise. It affirms that the Hebrews knew that east was where the sun rose each morning. From this point of view, it does not seem reasonable that Lehi would have landed , on a southern coast and then perpetuated the concept that north being to the left of qedem was rotated 45 ,degrees to the right from true north.

I will gladly accept that qedem in and of itself does not itself contain the meaning of "the rising sun" but there is no question in my opinion that the hebrew did not associate east(qedem) with sunrise.as did both the ancient germanics and latins and mesoamericans.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=655

Larry P

[cursor]

This thread gives me the chance to ask: Does anyone know if John Sorenson will be making any adjustments to his geography in the forth-coming Mormon's Codex? I was specifically hoping Cursor could offer some insight on this question, since he has seen and worked on the manuscript.

I asked:

"How has your perspective changed on Book of Mormon geography since your 1985 publication of

An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon

, if at all?"

JLS responded:

"Basically not at all since 1953 when I was digging in Mexico and studying the text “on the scene.” I have seen no reason to change that persuades me that I was wrong. The scheme is now more elaborated, filled in “around the edges” and deepened. And after more careful restudy of the archaeology as well as the text on the Jaredite material I have changed substantially my views of it while remaining tentative (but not by much)."

[nealr]

I asked:

"How has your perspective changed on Book of Mormon geography since your 1985 publication of

An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon

, if at all?"

JLS responded:

"Basically not at all since 1953 when I was digging in Mexico and studying the text “on the scene.” I have seen no reason to change that persuades me that I was wrong. The scheme is now more elaborated, filled in “around the edges” and deepened. And after more careful restudy of the archaeology as well as the text on the Jaredite material I have changed substantially my views of it while remaining tentative (but not by much)."

Thanks Cursor. I look forward to getting my hands on Mormon's Codex.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert

They also used "qedem"

http://www.ancient-h...7_eternity.html

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun".

And Here

http://www.ancient-h..._brown-time.pdf

depends on where you put the vowels and which ones you use.

Sorenson preferred your definition in order to justify his rotation of the directions. However, even you know the sun rises in the east, not the north.

Larry P

Give me a break, Larry!!

Citing Jeff Benner is as useful as citing Erich von Daniken, neither of whom has the foggiest idea what he is talking about. Very inventive, yes. Accurate, no.

As to qedem, I simply gave the directional (-ward) use qedma (see Gen 28:14 in Hebrew, which is used as a popular Israeli folksong). The conventional, modern Hebrew translation is indeed "east, eastward," but no ancient Hebrew used it that way. It means "forward" in the directional context, just as achora means "behind," which are used together in both Hebrew and in Akkadian in sequencing "far" and "near.". Akkadian and Hebrew also have cognate words meaning "right" and "left," but only in Hebrew are they used with directional meaning -- by extension from the "forward" orientation.

I won't even comment here on Benner's atrocious mistranslation of 'olam. The word also occurs in the Book of Abraham.

Moreover, you still haven't dealt with the equinoctial solar extremes which were so important to the Mesoamericans.

You would be well advised to follow MormonMason's advice and refer to legitimate lexical sources.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[poulsenll]

Robert

see #61 above

Laryry P

[Robert F. Smith]

MM

From my point of view, it is not nescesary for qedem to have the meaning of "toward the rising sun", it is only nescesary to realize that the word for east was at least recognized as associated with sunrise. It affirms that the Hebrews knew that east was where the sun rose each morning. From this point of view, it does not seem reasonable that Lehi would have landed , on a southern coast and then perpetuated the concept that north being to the left of qedem was rotated 45 ,degrees to the right from true north.

I will gladly accept that qedem in and of itself does not itself contain the meaning of "the rising sun" but there is no question in my opinion that the hebrew did not associate east(qedem) with sunrise.as did both the ancient germanics and latins and mesoamericans.

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=2&id=655

Larry P

Robert

see #61 above

Laryry P

O.K., Larry,

Now that we have that out of the way, (1) how about telling us where the sun rises, i.e., with full attention to the extremes of solstitial sunrise. (2) Then take a look at the work of Vincent Malmström on how the Mesoamericans in fact oriented their cities.*

(3) Finally, take a look at how both the Conquistadores and modern people (travelers in Mexico) refer to local and regional directions.

In all three cases, anthropological reality tells us what in fact goes on in the real world, rather than what might theoretically be the case in modern science and technology. In all three cases, directions are skewed in ways which verify John Sorenson's approach.

* Malmström, Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon (Univ. of Texas Press, 1997), esp. chapter 5. See for further publications: http://www.dartmouth...~izapa/Pubs.htm .

Edited October 1, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[nealr]

I think understanding John Sorenson's argument about directions is quite simple. It is not that the Nephites didn't know where the sun came up, or thought that it rose in what we would call the "south," It is simply a matter of how they oriented themselves within their geographic surroundings. Their directional schema worked (or at least one of them) by finding out which way the Mediterranean sea was, and then sorting it out from there. They used "backward" to mean toward the sea, "forward" to mean away from it, and thus "left" or "right" to go one way or another parallel to the sea. Since, in Palestine, those "directions" correspond nicely with our concepts of North, South, East, and West, that is how those terms are frequently translated. Sorenson simply pointed out that unless the Nephites deliberately changed this schema, their directional terms would have referred to something different because sea they now used to orient themselves was not strictly "west" as we would define it. Thus, if Joseph Smith translated those terms as they typically are translated, then we end up with words like "east" and "west" that don't literally mean modern "east" or "west."

As a parallel example, growing up and living in the Salt Lake Valley and Utah Valley, I've always used the dominant mountain range (to my east) as a method of getting my bearings. I then figure what direction something is in relation to the mountains. Now, lets say I move to Yakima, Washington. Since that is also near a mountian range (the Cascades), it would probably carry over my habitual use of the mountains as a means of orientation, since that would be most convenient. But now, the mountains would be to my west, not east (though I might accidentally get it backwards sometimes, out of habit). Though I would still know what is North, South, East, and West, my method of orientation would have flipped a full 180 degrees. If the terms I used when referring to directions were tied to the mountain (say, "mountain-ward" "left of the mount," "right of the mount", "away from the mountains".), then the actual directional meaning of those terms would have completely changed.

Edited October 1, 2012 by nealr

[poulsenll]

Neair

I agree that JS translated the words to our language. However, care must be taken to view that language in terms of the culture of the 1800s as reflected in the 1820 Webster's dictionary. Based on that and the fact that he translated by the gift and power of God, In my opinion care should be taken before we try to justify a geographic model by proposing rotated directions. Especially if it is not necessary if we accept the 1820 dictionary's meanings for northward and southward.

northward

NORTH'WARD, a. Being towards the north, or nearer to the north than to the east and west points.

NORTH'WARD, adv. Towards the north, or towards a point nearer to the north than the east and west points.

southward

SOUTHWARD, adv. suth'ard. Towards the south; as, to go southward.

SOUTHWARD, n. suth'ard. The southern regions or countries.

Also check out Brant Gardner's recent FAIR talk.

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I have mine, you have yours. Lets just agree to disagree.

Larry P

Edited October 1, 2012 by poulsenll

[nealr]

Also check out Brant Gardner's recent FAIR talk.

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I have mine, you have yours. Lets just agree to disagree.

Larry P

Larry,

I do not necessarily disagree with you. I'm just saying that I see Sorenson's explanation as plausible. I've also read what you have written on the subject, and I was there for Gardner's presentation. I also had a chance to look at Gardner's thoughts on Book of Mormon directions previously in an unpublished manuscript. I used some of this information months ago in a blogpost here (go to the section "Directions in the Text and the Real World"). I like Brant's recent explanation quite a bit, but I don't pretend to know, with certainty, what actually happened.

What I am trying to say is that I find all the discussions about directions reasonable and possible, and I haven't personally committed to anyone position on the matter.

[poulsenll]

Neair

I too find Sorenson's, explanation as plausible but using a model that does not shift directions, I find a number of connections with real geography that are not possible with Sorenson's map.

For example:

The BofM equates Hermounts with a wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts.

Tehuantepec is defined in Remi Simeon's Diccionario de la lengua Nahuatl as

Animal salvage, devoradora de hombres - Savage animal, devourer of men

from the Book of Mormon we read

36 And they fled before the Nephites towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land; and the Nephites did pursue them with their might, and did slay them.

37 Yea, they were met on every hand, and slain and driven, until they were scattered on the west, and on the north, until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts.

The text uses "west and north" and "on the west and on the north" rather than northwest. If one draws a line from Sorenson's location for the city of Zarahemla to the point where the sun sets at the summer solstice, it goes through the barrancas(wilderness) that forms the eastern edge of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. If as I have suggested, this line forms the border betwen the western and northern quarters of the Nephite lands then this use of directions makes sense. Chased along this border they would be scattered "on the west and on the north" until they were driven into the barrancas of Tehuantepec.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

RFS

Please see

Nicholas A. Hopkins and J. Kathryn Josserand, “Directions and Partitions in Maya World View,” Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. 2011, http://www.famsi.org/research/hopkins/directions.html, accessed April 2011, 13. This paper is an expansion of a paper presented March 24, 2001 in the symposium “Four Corners of the Maya World,” 19th Maya Weekend, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. The current publication is posthumous for Dr. Josserand: “Some languages form the words for ‘north’ and ‘south’ on the basis of local geographical conditions.” They do not collect the Tzeltal terms for north and south. They do collect a ‘down-slope’ meaning for ‘north’ and ‘right-handed’ for Nahuatl, p. 14.

Larry P

[IloveaMormon]

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/403112

You will be removed from the thread if you derail the topic with political debate.

[Robert F. Smith]

RFS

Please see

Nicholas A. Hopkins and J. Kathryn Josserand, “Directions and Partitions in Maya World View,” Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. 2011, http://www.famsi.org...directions.html, accessed April 2011, 13. This paper is an expansion of a paper presented March 24, 2001 in the symposium “Four Corners of the Maya World,” 19th Maya Weekend, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. The current publication is posthumous for Dr. Josserand: “Some languages form the words for ‘north’ and ‘south’ on the basis of local geographical conditions.” They do not collect the Tzeltal terms for north and south. They do collect a ‘down-slope’ meaning for ‘north’ and ‘right-handed’ for Nahuatl, p. 14.

Larry P

Thanks for this. I wasn't aware of it. I did attend a very interesting several days studying under Hopkins & Josserand at UCLA some years ago, and have always enjoyed their deep concern with Maya cosmology.

I note particularly their comment on pp. 15-16 of “Directions and Partitions in Maya World View,”

“The solution seems to be, as Karen Bassie has argued (Bassie-Sweet 1996), that ‘east’ and ‘west’ are not directions at all, but are broad quadrants of the sky centered on, but not limited to, the cardinal directions ‘east’ and ‘west’. ‘East’ is the entire section of the horizon where the sun rises during the year, from solstice to solstice and back again. This quadrant is represented in site layout by the E-group complexes found at Uaxactun and elsewhere (Morely 1946;Fig. 3). ‘West’ is the corresponding quadrant where the sun is observed to set. ‘North’ and ‘south’ are simply the quadrants that like between these two, that lie ‘at the sides of the sky’, ‘to the right hand’ or ‘to the left’. That is, two defined quadrants imply two others, giving a total of four. The ‘four corners of the Maya world’ are simply the limits of the east-west quadrants, and do not imply four cardinal directions.”

This is likewise a major problem for directions in ancient Egypt and the controversy over whether the Canopic Jars represent cardinal points or quadrants.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/403112

Yes, it is a shame and an embarrassment to the USA that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which was forced on Mexico) has not been enforced by the USA. Land and rights were simply stolen from the Hispanic residents of the territories acquired by the USA (1/3 of Mexico), and the Mormon Battalion aided in that takeover.

[poulsenll]

Of interest on the topic of directions

INAH has been restoring the Great Ball Court at Chichen Itza for two years. They have restored the staircase in the back and the five passages built to observe the sun during solstices and equinoxes. They have confirmed the celestial markers theory by doing so. The Ball Court dates to 864 CE. The Ball Game itself is a re-creation of the Sun and its movements, with the ball representing the Sun, and the movements on the ball court representing the journey of the Sun. INAH will have completed its restoration of the Great Ball Court by the end of the field season, and the public will be able to view the newly restored elements. INAH is working diligently to correct problems of excess moisture in the structures at Chichen Itza and stabilizing the structures there.

INAH has the report here (in Spanish) with a great slide show of the Court and the work being done. (click on the tiny red 360* icon--and it may take 10 seconds or so for the photos to stabilize).

http://www.inah.gob.mx/index.php/boletines/250-proteccion-del-patrimonio/6154-juego-de-pelota-de-chichen-itza-fue-marcador-solar

Mike Ruggeri

Larry P