Mayan Lamanites

[beastie]

While BoM apologists may assert that Nephites are not Mayan, nor are they related to the origins of the Mayan, it seems to me that even the LGT necessitates accepting that the Lamanites were Mayan, especially given the political context of the term by LGTists. So while the Nephites being nonMayan, being a small extremely small minority religious/political anomalie (despite, oddly enough, seeming to extend over several cities), and hence, having apparently no traceable impact on Mesoamerican history, it seems that the Lamanites, by contrast, would be the dominant group that actually left all the impact we now see in Mesoamerican history. Or are the Lamanites another extremely small minority group?

So my question is this: Are Lamanites Mayans?

[BCSpace]

Pardon my ignorance and please define 'LGT'. Thanks.

Personally, I believe that the Jaredites and the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations were relatively large (no smaller than say the whole of central America excluding Mexico at their height) and highly likely to be the Olmecs and preClassic Maya or their immediate precursors or neighbors.

I am not opposed to the 'Great Lakes' or 'Northeastern' theories, but I think them much less likely.

[PhilipTraum]

Pardon my ignorance and please define 'LGT'. Thanks.

Lesbian/Gay/Transgendered? Though I'm unsure where they fit in RE: Book of Mormon Archeology...

[Hawkeye]

Limited Geography Theory

[beastie]

Personally, I believe that the Jaredites and the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations were relatively large (no smaller than say the whole of central America excluding Mexico at their height) and highly likely to be the Olmecs and preClassic Maya or their immediate precursors or neighbors.

I am not opposed to the 'Great Lakes' or 'Northeastern' theories, but I think them much less likely

I doubt you will find many apologists with background knowledge in Mesoamerican history who would agree with you. Brant Gardner, for example, seems to believe that the Nephites were a very small group, around 1,000, who lived in a very small area in Mesoamerica. He would resolve the numerical inconsistency within the BoM by referring to ethnocentric exaggeration. With your theory, one would reasonably expect that the Mayan evidences would correlate with the BoM, and they don't. So apologists shrink the population in order to avoid several problems (DNA as well as evidence).

LGT does mean Limited Geography Theory, and is the current capital among BoM apologists nowadays. Your theory, while not quite the hemispheric model, encompasses more population and area, and would thereby be much harder to defend.

So I guess I should have directed my question mainly towards those who embrace the LGT. Are Lamanites Mayans?

[ldshottie:)]

Personally, I believe that the Jaredites and the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations were relatively large (no smaller than say the whole of central America excluding Mexico at their height) and highly likely to be the Olmecs and preClassic Maya or their immediate precursors or neighbors.

I am not opposed to the 'Great Lakes' or 'Northeastern' theories, but I think them much less likely

I doubt you will find many apologists with background knowledge in Mesoamerican history who would agree with you. Brant Gardner, for example, seems to believe that the Nephites were a very small group, around 1,000, who lived in a very small area in Mesoamerica. He would resolve the numerical inconsistency within the BoM by referring to ethnocentric exaggeration. With your theory, one would reasonably expect that the Mayan evidences would correlate with the BoM, and they don't. So apologists shrink the population in order to avoid several problems (DNA as well as evidence).

LGT does mean Limited Geography Theory, and is the current capital among BoM apologists nowadays. Your theory, while not quite the hemispheric model, encompasses more population and area, and would thereby be much harder to defend.

So I guess I should have directed my question mainly towards those who embrace the LGT. Are Lamanites Mayans?

Only 1000 Nephites? I have never heard any apologist claim this. If they exaggerated their numbers, it means they may have exaggerated other things, like their righteousness. I don't buy it. Can you provide a quote from any apologist, or even a run of the mill mormon, who thinks there were only 1000 Nephites?

[Daniel Peterson]

Brant Gardner . . . seems to believe that the Nephites were a very small group, around 1,000, who lived in a very small area in Mesoamerica.  He would resolve the numerical inconsistency within the BoM by referring to ethnocentric exaggeration.  With your theory, one would reasonably expect that the Mayan evidences would correlate with the BoM, and they don't.  So apologists shrink the population in order to avoid several problems (DNA as well as evidence).   

beastie, I'll assume that your reference to there only being "around a 1000" Nephites according to Brant Gardner is merely a dismissive caricature.

But do you really believe, as you seem to say, that the Limited Geography Theory has emerged in order to evade such things as DNA data? If so, do you have any evidence to support that contention?

[beastie]

Only 1000 Nephites? I have never heard any apologist claim this. If they exaggerated their numbers, it means they may have exaggerated other things, like their righteousness. I don't buy it. Can you provide a quote from any apologist, or even a run of the mill mormon, who thinks there were only 1000 Nephites?

Sure, I can find a quote from Brant Gardner where he directly answered this question on ZLMB, but I'll have to do it later tonight. He was addressing how many Nephites were likely in the largest Nephite city, IIRC, but did not address how many Nephites were in other cities. The numbers could not be significant larger than the largest city, however, under Brant's theory.

And yes, apologists discount the reliability of almost everything Nephites said, including the accounts of their own righteousness and lamanite wickedness. It's ethnocentricity. I'll try to find a quote demonstrating that tonight as well.

[beastie]

But do you really believe, as you seem to say, that the Limited Geography Theory has emerged in order to evade such things as DNA data? If so, do you have any evidence to support that contention?

While there have been statements in the further past that seem to hint at a possible LGT, it's only been recently that it has become the seeming overwhelming favorite among apologists. If you read my statement more closely, you will see that I did not attribute this solely to DNA, but DNA and other evidences. IOW, if there were evidence to support the far more popular whole geography theory then I doubt the LGT would have become the apparent number one theory that it seems to be today. So yes, I do believe it has grown and strengthened in response to the challenges actual evidences present to the BoM story, taken more at face value (without factoring in all the necessary exaggerations, etc)

BTW, I was not dismissively caricaturizing Brant's statements. I was reflecting them as I understand them, and in fact, accept them enough that I phrased my question in terms of the LGT in the first place.

[Brant Gardner]

1000 Nephites? How long after landing? I am sure that at one point there were less than that. At another point there were more than that - I expect more in Zarahemla. I believe I accepted Sorenson's estimate of up to 20,000 in Zarahemla during the time of Benjamin/Mosiah2.

[Daniel Peterson]

An article by Matthew Roper, due out in the next issue of the FARMS Review (sometime in January, I expect), will show that full-fledged limited geographical models of the Book of Mormon have been in print since the 1920s (decades before the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule and prior to the maturation of scientific Mesoamerican archaeology), and that elements or precursors of it have been circulating among members and leaders of the Church since the 1840s.

Moreover, as John Sorenson's work has demonstrated -- repeatedly, at length, and in comprehensive detail -- the limited geographical view flows directly from data in the text of the Book of Mormon itself. There is no need to invoke hypothetical outside factors to account for the rise of such models, since the Book of Mormon text already fully accounts for them. Ockham's Razor applies very neatly here.

[beastie]

Good, Brant, you can save me some time. Did or did you not tell Truth Dancer that you would estimate about 1,000 inhabitants in the major Nephite city at the end of the BoM period?

While I don't mind some discussion about LGT in particular, I am less interested in that than I am in my primary question. I am willing to discuss the BoM in terms of the LGT. That is why I want to know, under the LGT, are Lamanites Mayan?

[xerego]

So my question is this:  Are Lamanites Mayans?

I think the question is phrased incorrectly.

Would Nephites have considered the Maya Lamanites? Probably.

Would Nephites have considered others (like Teotihuacanos) Lamanites? Probably.

If one accepts Sorenson's 1985 geography then the Maya are a subset of the Lamanites.

If one accepts Joseph Allen's geography then the Maya are not Lamanites.

If one accepts a Great Lakes geography then the Maya probably never enter the picture.

If one accepts a hemispheric geography with the narrow neck at Panama then the Maya probably also do not enter the picture (too late, too far north).

So the answer to the question will depend on the geographical theory that you accept.

Criticisms of the Book of Mormon based on geographical theories (such as the DNA issue) have problems precisely because they only work on one geographical theory and usually fail to consider how the criticism will work on other theories.

[USU78]

beastie: "While there have been statements in the further past that seem to hint at a possible LGT, it's only been recently that it has become the seeming overwhelming favorite among apologists."

When I was a missionary back in the middle ages, there was a film strip called A Voice Out of the Dust. I got it 5th hand in 1973, as it had passed down from missionary to missionary to missionary . . . amazingly gaining value (along with Die Mormonen in Mitteleuropa, audiocassettes and slide projector) as each missionary sold it at higher rates to subsequent missionaries.

In it, physical evidences of the Lehites in the Americas were depicted and discussed . . . all were in Mexico and Mezoamerica. Some have since been debunked with some degree of success while others have held up pretty well. I certainly took it for evidence of the Mezoamerican LGT when I was in HS and first saw it in a Seminary class several years before my mission.

When was it the mitochondrial DNA study came out again?

Post hoc ergo procter hoc is a fallacy, but it at least gets things in the right order.

[Stormin' Mormon]

if there were evidence to support the far more popular whole geography theory then I doubt the LGT would have become the apparent number one theory that it seems to be today.

Well, duh! It would be a horrible crime against science if we did not work with the theory that best describes the evidence. What's your point? That we should ignore the gobs of scientific evidence supporting the LGT?

[beastie]

Well, duh! It would be a horrible crime against science if we did not work with the theory that best describes the evidence. What's your point? That we should ignore the gobs of scientific evidence supporting the LGT?

Well, certainly the "gobs" of scientific evidence "supporting" the LGT is debatable, but would need an entire, or numerous, threads. However, it is undeniable that there is "gobs" of scientific evidence that effectively neuters any other possibility. I'm not the one making a big deal over this. Argue with Peterson, who seems to want to insist that the gobs of scientific evidence has nothing to do with the current popularity of LGT. I am more than willing to argue on the basis of LGT, even though I believe it is a strained interpretation of the BoM. The hard fact is that the more educated apologists now normally adhere to the LGT, because otherwise you'd have to ignore science and logic altogether, so I deliberately phrased my question within the LGT.

In it, physical evidences of the Lehites in the Americas were depicted and discussed . . . all were in Mexico and Mezoamerica. Some have since been debunked with some degree of success while others have held up pretty well. I certainly took it for evidence of the Mezoamerican LGT when I was in HS and first saw it in a Seminary class several years before my mission.

When was it the mitochondrial DNA study came out again?

Again, "held up pretty well" would be a subject of debate, I imagine. But, stormin suggested, I don't know why apologists want to insist that science has nothing to do with the popularity of the LGT. If there had been evidence to support the hemispheric model, the LGT wouldn't be the current favorite, obviously, since the hemispheric model has a long history of support among mormons in general and prophets, apostles, etc. Apparently, apologists dislike admitting that there has been a change in focus in BoM apologetics for some reason. I guess it leads to the debate on whether or not the LGT is the logical reading of the BoM. I do not believe it is logical for various reasons, for example, why the others are unnamed when it seems that such a glorious coup - politcal and religious - would be fodder for ethnocentric bragging of the highest order. But that is neither here nor there on this particular thread. I want to know if, under the LGT, Lamanites are considered Mayans.

If one accepts Sorenson's 1985 geography then the Maya are a subset of the Lamanites.

If one accepts Joseph Allen's geography then the Maya are not Lamanites.

If one accepts a Great Lakes geography then the Maya probably never enter the picture.

If one accepts a hemispheric geography with the narrow neck at Panama then the Maya probably also do not enter the picture (too late, too far north).

It seems to me that Sorenson's model tends to be favored, at least among internet apologists, so let's go with that one. I'm not sure why they are a "subset", if Lamanite is a political term that means, basically, everyone that did not follow Nephi.

Criticisms of the Book of Mormon based on geographical theories (such as the DNA issue) have problems precisely because they only work on one geographical theory and usually fail to consider how the criticism will work on other theories.

This is a problem with BoM apologetics, as well. For example, the loose versus tight translation theory robs Peter to pay Paul. (I suppose that explains the latest evolution of that theory I read on this board, recently, a combination of the two). The problem is that we're dealing with an unknown that simply has various forms of speculation, so of course it depends upon which speculation one addresses whether or not other problems are likewise addressed.

I believe that, based on Sorenson's model, Lamanites would be Mayans, culturally and religiously. Anyone disagree?

[alienward]

While I don't mind some discussion about LGT in particular, I am less interested in that than I am in my primary question.  I am willing to discuss the BoM in terms of the LGT.  That is why I want to know, under the LGT, are Lamanites Mayan?

Sorenson says in his paper

[Addictio]

When I was a missionary back in the middle ages, there was a film strip called A Voice Out of the Dust. I got it 5th hand in 1973, as it had passed down from missionary to missionary to missionary . . . amazingly gaining value (along with Die Mormonen in Mitteleuropa, audiocassettes and slide projector) as each missionary sold it at higher rates to subsequent missionaries.

In it, physical evidences of the Lehites in the Americas were depicted and discussed . . . all were in Mexico and Mezoamerica. Some have since been debunked with some degree of success while others have held up pretty well. I certainly took it for evidence of the Mezoamerican LGT when I was in HS and first saw it in a Seminary class several years before my mission.

When was it the mitochondrial DNA study came out again?

Post hoc ergo procter hoc is a fallacy, but it at least gets things in the right order.

If we want to be a bit more precise about it, the Sorenson LGT includes claims/positions regarding three different things: location, geographic scope and the identity/origin of BoM and american-continent populations. Hypotheses about mesoamerica as the location and a limited geographic scope have been around much longer than the current position on populations that is treated as part of the mesoamerican LGT. The latter did not get articulated in any systematic way until Sorenson did so in his book in 1985, and did not get fully articulated until his "Others" article in 1992.

Contrary to what Peterson says above, in his 1992 article Sorenson is perfectly clear that what drives his anaysis is indeed "something outside the text." It is the estimated population growth rates he cites and uses in his article.

That said, the whole debate about what kind of evidence led to the development of the LGT is of only historical (and usually on discussion boards, rhetorical) interest, in my view. It should be obvious to anyone who reflects that all kinds of evidence "outside the text" (linguistic, archaeological) were involved in the development of the LGT. What follows?

If it were worth arguing about, Sorenson would probably be the best source of information about whether DNA evidence (and/or its anthropological precursors focusing on linguistics, phenotype and blood typing) played any role in his development of the "population" aspects of the LGT.

Beastie's more interesting question -- the one actually being asked -- is about the relationship between the Lamanites and Maya.

[Daniel Peterson]

Contrary to what Peterson says above, in his 1992 article Sorenson is perfectly clear that what drives his anaysis is indeed "something outside the text."  It is the estimated population growth rates he cites and uses in his article.

The 1992 article is devoted to population issues. It is not the article -- nor anywhere near the article -- in which Sorenson spells out his reasons for adopting the LGT.

And when Sorenson does spell those reasons out (as in his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and, even more clearly, in his subsequent Mormon's Map), he does so in terms of the distances implicit or explicit in the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Contrary to what Addictio says above.

[beastie]

I found the ZLMB thread that triggered my "1,000" comment, and yes, I did misremember the context, and apologize for that. Brant stated that Nephi was probably king over a village of about 1,000. Later, in another thread, he states that there may have been "thousands" involved in the final battle of the BoM, and that "hundreds of thousands" (who waited for the Aztecs?) was an exaggeration.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...opicID=20.topic

Truth Dancer:Over how many people do you think Nephi was King?

Brant:I suspect a small village - say 1000 for round numbers. See my response to Seven about the type of king Nephi was in contrast with later kings.

Brant Gardner

Digger

Posts: 2174

(11/19/04 6:18 am)

Reply  Re: Isthmus of Rivas and the BoM....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really can't guess at the numbers of individuals involved in the final battle. Thousands would fit with the time period - hundreds of thousands would wait for Aztec times (and are then possibly inflated figures).

The current best guess for the extent of Book of Mormon lands is about 600 miles north to south. I suspect, however, that Sorenson stretched that a little because he wanted to include Teotihuacan's temple of the Feathered Serpent as relevant to the Book of Mormon. I don't think that Nephite holdings were that far north. 

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...opicID=10.topic

For evidence that BoM apologetics relies on ethnocenctric exaggerations and cannot be taken literally, this thread on the BoM destruction should be interesting.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...start=1&stop=20

Brant clarifies on this thread that he does not believe the Nephites were all killed during the final BoM period.

Another topic which often reveals the idea of flawed ethnocentricity of the Bom can be found in writings regarding why the "others" that must have been in the New World, and far outnumbering Lehi's family, were not explicitly mentioned in the text.

At any rate, I really did not intend this to devolve into a debate on LGT in general. I apologize if I minimized the number of nephites inadvertantly, but certainly they are a far smaller group than described in the BoM, with far less regional influence.

All this is an aside to my primary question - were the Lamanites Mayan?

[Addictio]

DCP said in part:

And when Sorenson does spell those reasons out (as in his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and, even more clearly, in his subsequent Mormon's Map), he does so in terms of the distances implicit or explicit in the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Contrary to what Addictio says above.

You're not "getting it," seems to me. The reason I took the time to note the different elements of the LGT is in part so everyone could see that the location and spatial scope elements of the theory are distinct (and should be distinguished) from the population issues. So with respect to the distances (spatial scope element of the LGT), what you say above is obviously true, and not in dispute.

It is just as obvious, however, that the version of the LGT relied upon and defended in the recent LDS apologetics on the DNA isssue, such as Roper's and Sorenson's "Before DNA" article, perforce include and must focus on the population element. Indeed, that's the most important part of the theory as far as the DNA issues are concerned. (Hence, btw, Whiting's use of the term "Global Colonization Model" --note the population, not spatial terminology -- to refer to the traditional interpretation which, reflecting in its name the spatial-scope element, is also called the "Hemispheric Model.")

Anyway, if the issue of when the population elements of the current (DNA-response) LGT took shape were worth arguing about, which it's not, the place to begin would be Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors" article. Anyone who's following what I'm saying can read the Roper article for themselves and see how early or late the population elements of the current Theory emerged.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

All this is an aside to my primary question - were the Lamanites Mayan?

Which I can't answer because it is not a question that is framed in a way that can be intelligently answered. Were the people who were in conflict with the Saints in Nauvoo Americans? Does that mean that we should expect that if I discuss the culture of Boston that I can understand what was happening in Nauvoo?

Maya designates a group of at least 10 distinct languages. Are the Spanish French? Are the Italians Romani? Does any such question make sense?

If you don't understand the Maya and how they differ from the Zoque, attempting to answer a simplistic question can be nothing but misleading.

What nationality are gentiles? What language do they speak.

Answer a few of the questions above for me and I'll get back to you on the question of Lamanites. Xerego's answer was pretty good, by the way.

beastie:

Another topic which often reveals the idea of flawed ethnocentricity of the Bom can be found in writings regarding why the "others" that must have been in the New World, and far outnumbering Lehi's family, were not explicitly mentioned in the text. [\quote]

Flawed ethnocentricity? Please tell me what anthropological literature you are using to make such a statement. One of the very common elements of ethnocentricity is an emphasis on the internal and the objectification of "others." What have you read that suggests otherwise? Read Bruce Malina on the pan-Mediterranean culture as a starting point.

[beastie]

Brant,

Are you saying that the group of people called "mayans" by scholars did not share enough significant characteristics to be able to discuss whether or not Lamanites were Mayans? If the term is so meaningless, why do scholars consistently use the term? Or are you suggesting that the BoM did not take place within the area in which the group scholars called Mayans lived?

Note Michael Coe's statement about the Mayan in his introduction to The Maya. (for Juliann, p 11

The Maya are hardly a vanished people, for they number at least seven-and-a-half-million souls, the largest single block of American Indians north of Peru.

[truth dancer]

Hi Brant...

Which I can't answer because it is not a question that is framed in a way that can be intelligently answered.

So.. how could the question be more clearly framed?

Would you say that the Lamanite culture fit within the commonly held understanding of the Mayan culture?

Or... Were the Lamanites part of the Mayan culture/society?

Or... Did the Mayan culture include the Lamanites?

Or... Were the Lamanites distinct and seperate, or a part of the Mayan culture?

If you still are not sure of what the question is... maybe you could just explain how you see the Lamanites fitting into the Mayan culture.

Thanks,

~dancer~

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Are you saying that the group of people called "mayans" by scholars did not share enough significant characteristics to be able to discuss whether or not Lamanites were Mayans? If the term is so meaningless, why do scholars consistently use the term? Or are you suggesting that the BoM did not take place within the area in which the group scholars called Mayans lived?

I am saying that the way you are framing the question tells me that you are looking at an agenda rather than history. Were the Maya Lamanites? It rather depends on what you think a Lamanite is. Since the text tells me that Lamanites were anyone not Nephite, then the Maya were Lamanites. So were the Zapotecs. So were the Nicarao. So were the cultures of South America that they never met. If the definition of Lamanite is "every one not Nephite," then there are lots and lots of Lamanites.

Now, if you are speaking of archaeology and the interaction of peoples, the idea of "Maya" becomes less useful. Are the people of Tikal and Calakmul Maya? Yes - and bitter enemies. Let's say that we knew for a fact that Tikal was a Lamanite city that had attacked Zarahemla. What could we tell about Zarahemla by looking at Calakmul?

If you read Sorenson's discussion of the movements of Nephite peoples, they spent a lot of time in a Maya area and them moved to a region that is dominated (historically) by Zoque speakers. The Grijalva does have some cultural/trade relations with the highland Guatemala area (one of the Maya groups) - but not necessarily the lowland Maya. So - they were influenced by some Maya - but not others, and most of the Zarahemla culture would be based in information coming from the Zoque.

When the Nephites were in Maya territory, could we say that they were Maya? Perhaps. However, saying that they were the Maya would be erroneous, because they were a single city, and cities were independent even when sharing a language and culture.

Ask someone from Sparta and Athens of they were Greek. We would say so, but I expect that they would not see so much in common. They would the Spartans and Atheneans, and wouldn't see themselves as very similar unless they were threatened by someone from the outside - although the Spartans didn't want to interrupt a religious festival to help fight off the Persians in the battle of Marathon. They were *that* Greek.

So my recommendation to you would be to get on to whatever point you want to make without attempting to get someone to give you the answer you seem to want.

So let's pretend for the purpose of this converation that Coe, and all the other scholars who use "Mayan" as a meaningful descriptive term actually know what they're talking about and realize the term does, in fact, describe a certain group of people with certain characteristics, despite various dialects.

No - let's understand that when people are speaking of gross cultural characteristics that it has one analytical value, and when they are speaking of historical connections among cities there is a different set of values. There are Americans who share general cultural values and even a very large set of material goods. Then you have "little" regional differences such as north and south. They are very different flavors of the American culture. Then you have pockets in Appalachia that preserve much older cultural data.

As I noted above, you are pushing some kind of agenda. Please get on with it. If you want me to say that Lamanites are Maya or Maya are Lamanites, I cannot because it is like saying that New Yorkers are gentiles. It could be true from the perspective of Palestine, but it would make a large Jewish population in NYC laugh a lot. You are crossing definitions and trying to make completely different concepts the same. It can't happen that way.

Regarding flawed ethnocentricity, you are being far too defensive. My comment simply meant that when a document is riddled with ethnocentricity the way that the Bom would be, if an historical document, then it is flawed in terms of giving accurate historical information.

I am defensive on this topic because this statement does not fit with any anthropological/enthnohistorical theory of which I am aware. If you have an ancient document that is not riddled with "ethnocentricity," I would suspect it modern rather than ancient. If you think such documents are flawed in terms of giving accurate historical information it tells me you have no experience with ethnohistorical documents or how they are used.