volgadon Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 And you bring up some excellent reasons as well to question the historical accuracy of the painting. What can I say- we live in a scientific age where we have photographs and expect everything to be scientifically accurate. As we see every day on this board, literalism about scientific accuracy is rampant in our culture -if we see a picture, it is obviously not to be doubted as being "accurate" and historical.It's really sad that we have lost the power of imagination and have become so literal.Which is why frescoes by Fra. Angelico seem so bizarre to modern audiences. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) fergitaboutit Edited May 5, 2013 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Why is it sadder to think there might have actually been horses in the ancient new world as opposed to believing what accepted science tells us is truth?Whether or not the painting depicts actual american indians, or associated horses is still undetermined, but I do find the new discovery interesting, regardless of it's meaning, it being so close to Columbus' return.Of course it is interesting!It's not sadder to think that, just that this picture provides "evidence" of that.
mfbukowski Posted May 5, 2013 Posted May 5, 2013 Which is why frescoes by Fra. Angelico seem so bizarre to modern audiences.Not to mention Botticelli 1
DBMormon Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 I wonder what the golden globes depict.The annual Liahona party where everyone threw their liahonas into the air to celebrate Nephi's birthday! 3
canard78 Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) Columbus brought over horses on his second voyage in 1493 when he was given seventeen ships. If the painting was done in 1494 it would be possible that a painter would have been able to get a native to sit on one of those horses to be included in the painting.GlennIf the painter even needed someone to 'sit' for that part of the painting he could have just as easily had a European do so and then add the appropriate 'headdress' later. It's been reassuring that the replies here have been measured (including yours Glenn, in case that sounded pointed).The notion that a piece of art produced at a time when there were no horses is evidence to the contrary would be clutching at straws. I appreciate the willingness of people to reject weak evidence as it strengthens the credibility of that which is kept. (I'm not saying there were never horses, Sorensen's evidence is fairly compelling, but I don't think there's any question about there still being horses in 1400s). Edited May 6, 2013 by canard78
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Of course there were no photographers on CC's voyage, but it was the age of master illustrators. Explorers used illustrators and map makers to document their discoveries. Is it possible the artist had access to illustrations?
mfbukowski Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Of course there were no photographers on CC's voyage, but it was the age of master illustrators. Explorers used illustrators and map makers to document their discoveries. Is it possible the artist had access to illustrations?Sure it is possible, but I think not. If you look at the facial characteristics of the "Indians" you will notice that they are European faces. Also their bodies are much like the way that say, Michelangelo would depict a nude- they are quite idealized- no real person, even body builders, look that good! (volgadon is of course the exception)And of course the Renaissance was all about the idealization of man- to put it directly, those are typical Renaissance bodies, not real "Indians". 2
Sevenbak Posted May 6, 2013 Author Posted May 6, 2013 Sorensen's evidence is fairly compelling, but I don't think there's any question about there still being horses in 1400s).iirc, horse bones have been found in Adena or Hopewell mounds, although I don't know if they've been dated, as it was generally accepted that horses didn't exist in the time period in question.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 If the painter even needed someone to 'sit' for that part of the painting he could have just as easily had a European do so and then add the appropriate 'headdress' later.It's been reassuring that the replies here have been measured (including yours Glenn, in case that sounded pointed).The notion that a piece of art produced at a time when there were no horses is evidence to the contrary would be clutching at straws. I appreciate the willingness of people to reject weak evidence as it strengthens the credibility of that which is kept.(I'm not saying there were never horses, Sorensen's evidence is fairly compelling, but I don't think there's any question about there still being horses in 1400s).Sorensen's evidence fairly compelling? I really don't see it. He's an anthropologist expressing himself in a field he doesn't know much about. List 5 zoologists or paleozoologists who agree that horses existed in the Americas after 10,000 years ago.
canard78 Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Sorensen's evidence fairly compelling? I really don't see it. He's an anthropologist expressing himself in a field he doesn't know much about. List 5 zoologists or paleozoologists who agree that horses existed in the Americas after 10,000 years ago.The problem I guess with some experts is that they discard possible evidence if it contradicts the obvious. Jeff Lindsay's article on DNA had an interesting chapter that highlights the issue that DNA of native Americans is discarded if it appears to have been 'contaminated' by recent generations of Indians mixing with post-Colombian residents. If the DNA profile shows up with 'recent DNA' then it's discarded. It's possible, apparently, that Lehi's DNA is being put in the DNA trash can. Maybe the horse bones on digs get a similar treatment. Is this mental gymnastics around the obvious? I appreciate this may be all incidental given Lehi might never have even existed.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Sure it is possible, but I think not. If you look at the facial characteristics of the "Indians" you will notice that they are European faces. Also their bodies are much like the way that say, Michelangelo would depict a nude- they are quite idealized- no real person, even body builders, look that good! (volgadon is of course the exception)And of course the Renaissance was all about the idealization of man- to put it directly, those are typical Renaissance bodies, not real "Indians".No contemporary European artist would have known what Native American faces looked like.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 Some of the earliest European artistic images of Natve Americans. http://marinni.livejournal.com/723577.html 1
mfbukowski Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 No contemporary European artist would have known what Native American faces looked like.Huh?You are the one who brought up the idea of detailed drawings- now it seems you are reversing yourself 1
ERayR Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 Of course there were no photographers on CC's voyage, but it was the age of master illustrators. Explorers used illustrators and map makers to document their discoveries. Is it possible the artist had access to illustrations?But some of the crew brought along their pocket size digital cameras. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 7, 2013 Posted May 7, 2013 But some of the crew brought along their pocket size digital cameras.Nah- they just used their cell phones and sent the images back to Europe. Cheesh! 2
williamsmith Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 Horses have already been clearly shown to have existed already in BOM times in the America's, so I'm not sure why I'm still hearing some people here say "Columbus brought the horses"?Nice painting, but I don't see it as representing anything as to Mormonism. Plenty of other evidence by non-LDS scholars have already debunked the anti-mormon myth of no horses in the America's. 1
omni Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 Horses have already been clearly shown to have existed already in BOM times in the America's, so I'm not sure why I'm still hearing some people here say "Columbus brought the horses"?Nice painting, but I don't see it as representing anything as to Mormonism. Plenty of other evidence by non-LDS scholars have already debunked the anti-mormon myth of no horses in the America's.Oh really? Do tell...
Bernard Gui Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) Huh?You are the one who brought up the idea of detailed drawings- now it seems you are reversing yourselfI did not mention detailed drawings.Only the person making the drawings, if they existed, would have any idea what NA facial characteristics were. His contemporary artists could only extrapolate from what they saw or heard from him. After seeing even detailed drawings, they would probably revert to their own studies of anatomy. I have not been able to determine if a pictorial log was kept of their voyages. Edited May 8, 2013 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 But some of the crew brought along their pocket size digital cameras.They did have canons on board. 1
Calm Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 They did have canons on board.Not a bad pun at all...if there can be such a thing.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 Horses have already been clearly shown to have existed already in BOM times in the America's, so I'm not sure why I'm still hearing some people here say "Columbus brought the horses"?Nice painting, but I don't see it as representing anything as to Mormonism. Plenty of other evidence by non-LDS scholars have already debunked the anti-mormon myth of no horses in the America's.CFR.No, really, CFR.I'd love to read the evidence.Dazzle me.
Glenn101 Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 Dazzle me.One can't be dazzled until they take off their dark colored glasses. I guess mine have a more roset hue. Glenn 1
canard78 Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 CFR.No, really, CFR.I'd love to read the evidence.Dazzle me.Actually I'll second it. At best there's enough to put the 'never any' claims into into enough doubt to make less conclusive against. But to say its proven that there were horses in BoM times is a bit of a stretch. And it's not only anti-Mormons saying there were no horses.
Recommended Posts