Mayan Lamanites

[Confidential Informant]

But the smelting operations? Please provide evidence.

With pleasure:

The possibility that smelted iron was also used is enhanced by a find a Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico by Sigvald Linne, the famous Swedish archaeologist, of a pottery vessel which had been used for smelting a "metallic-looking" mass which contained iron and copper. --  "Mexican highlnad cultures," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 7, n.s., 1942, p. 13

And

The same researcher found a piece of iron in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, which he considered of smelted metal. --  "Zapotecan antiquities," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 4, n.s., 1938, p. 75.

[beastie]

But the smelting operations? Please provide evidence.

With pleasure:

QUOTE 

The possibility that smelted iron was also used is enhanced by a find a Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico by Sigvald Linne, the famous Swedish archaeologist, of a pottery vessel which had been used for smelting a "metallic-looking" mass which contained iron and copper. --  "Mexican highlnad cultures," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 7, n.s., 1942, p. 13

And

QUOTE 

The same researcher found a piece of iron in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, which he considered of smelted metal. --  "Zapotecan antiquities," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 4, n.s., 1938, p. 75.

This is the best you can do? Copying and pasting two of Sorenson's references? Note the date, note the same researcher involved in both. Now, think logically for a moment. The most notable scholars in this field, like Coe and Schele, who have written their works long after the date of these articles, are in consensus that the Olmecs/Mayans did not smelt iron. Yes, they used hematite and other iron minerals, mainly in an ornamental fashion, but that is different from a smelting industry. Now if this researcher had found evidence that led to conclusive proof of a smelting industry in Mesoamerica, I would expect that, by now, this knowledge would be accepted and reflected in more modern research on the subject. Why isn't it? And where is the reference to the "tons" you mentioned? You have a researcher who "considered" a piece of iron to be smelted, and a pottery vessel. Dated 1942 and 1938. Copied and pasted from an article by Soreson.

Now that's underwhelming.

(you know what's funny? When I can't find any reference to these claims in the books I have, I'll do a google search, or look on mesoweb to see what other information is available. What's funny is that the result of googling smelt, iron, Olmec, are LDS apologetic sites, all referring to the same Sorenson citations, as did searching the "tons" of iron referenced by Hamblin - were these "tons" smelted iron?)

[Confidential Informant]

Really? The google search I ran didn't return all that many apologetic sites. Moreover, I didn't make any conclusive statements at all. I simply said that there is evidence of these things, not that they are proven conclusions. That is a direct counter to your dogmatic statements about no evidence whatsoever.

As to the Olmec stuff, that's from Sorneson's book also. I would have quoted him but I dont' have the book so I just used the reference I had.

Whether or not you like the evidence is irrelevant and simply dismissing it doesn't make it go away. It's there, and you are forced to deal with it in a manner beyond merely dismissing it as irrelevant because it is old. Have you any information that counters these findings?

C.I.

Edited to add: Were the "tons" smelted iron? I doubt it. I believe it was ore that had simply been mined and the hoarded (the cite I read indicated that 4 tons of it were found in a single place -- which does support Brant's thesis of technological hoarding, etc).

ci

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

This is the best you can do? Copying and pasting two of Sorenson's references? Note the date, note the same researcher involved in both. Now, think logically for a moment. The most notable scholars in this field, like Coe and Schele, who have written their works long after the date of these articles, are in consensus that the Olmecs/Mayans did not smelt iron. Yes, they used hematite and other iron minerals, mainly in an ornamental fashion, but that is different from a smelting industry.

I would suggest you do a bit more thinking logically yourself before you take on such a superior air.

1) Logic: Should we talk about an article that discusses specific metal objects found archaeologically or text that generalize about the whole subject? In other words, do we believe the specialist discussing a particular find or a text that is discussing overall history?

2) Evidence: You not Coe and Schele. For fun I looked through the indices of their books on my shelves. While that doesn't guarantee that something that isn't in the index isn't buried in the text, I don't have the time or interest to reread them for this particular exercise. I checked two by Coe (one was The Maya). I checked three that have Linda Schele as one of the authors (inluding Forest of Trees which I know you have read). I looked for metal, iron, or copper in the indices of all five. There are no entries. That tells me that they aren't particularly interested in the topic. I also ran a control against two other texts, one a generalized archaeology text (mentioning iron mirrors and a related iron industry at San Lorenzo) and Morley (and Brainard's - revised) The Ancient Maya. The Morley text spends quite a bit of time on copper artifacts. It notes that they are late.

The point is that you are using evidence of absence from texts that don't seem to mention that topic. So - would you care to revise your statement that Schele and Coe are superior if they don't even deal with the issue?

By the way, if you think the mirrors were a fashion accessory you need to reread your sources. They were imbued with tremendous religious import.

[beastie]

I don't have time for more than one quick comment right now, but it must be said.

Brant, are seriously suggesting that the only reason Coe and Schele didn't talk about the evidence for iron-smelting in their books is because they weren't "interested"????????????????

Are you seriously suggesting that two antiquated references that, apparently, have not been subsequently backed up by anyone, is superior to current scholars on the subject? How many are just not interested in the evidence for iron smelting, Brant?

(btw, Coe mentions the iron mirrors repeatedly in Mexico)

[Confidential Informant]

Brant, are seriously suggesting that the only reason Coe and Schele didn't talk about the evidence for iron-smelting in their books is because they weren't "interested"????????????????

Why does this come as such a shock? It appears that the topic of mesoamerican metallurgy hasn't received much interest at all:

Although copper artifacts have been recovered from several other Lowland Maya sites, including a great number in the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itz

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Brant, are seriously suggesting that the only reason Coe and Schele didn't talk about the evidence for iron-smelting in their books is because they weren't "interested"????????????????

I am seriously suggesting two things. 1) The focus of their books was on other things, so not mentioning it means they weren't interested in that topic in those books. I have no idea what their interest is in the topic in general. The evidence of their writings is that it isn't of high concern to them.

2) I am suggesting that the missing evidence in those two books means you cannot use those books to support your statement about more recent data than what Confidential Informant posted. You implied that they supported your position and they do not. You have presented erroneous confirmation for your hypothesis.

To add to the list of issues, you apparently haven't read very widely in archaeological literature. The field reports often list data that are not followed widely in generalized studies. It has nothing to do with new or old. Of course you might have suggested that the studies of the smelting data had been discredited. I don't know that it has, but were it so it would be important newer information. However, saying that newer information that doesn't mention something negates older information that does isn't very convincing. Coe mentioning the mirrors does not equate to confirming the issue of metals.

As you might expect, this is a potentially controversial issue. As you might not expect, I doubt most archaeologists would consider the case as closed as you do. I certainly don't think drawing firm conclusions based on what Coe and Schele didn't say is a very good method.

How many are just not interested in the evidence for iron smelting, Brant?

Let's see, how should we answer that question? We could use your method, which is to assert that Coe supports a position he doesn't mention. We could say "if I were an archaeologist I would certainly be interested - therefore everyone is."

We could, however, look at literature specifically on that topic that speaks of artifacts that were discovered. Oh - that is what Confidential Informant did. Why was that wrong again?

[beastie]

Brant,

It's going to take a bit to get over my momentary shock at you suggesting that Coe's books, Mexico and The Mayan, which were meant to be overviews of those two areas of ancient Mesoamerican history, would actually overlook something as crucial and fundamental as iron smelting because he wasn't 'particularly interested'.

I have other comments on your responses, but this in particular has me flummoxed.

You said:

To add to the list of issues, you apparently haven't read very widely in archaeological literature. The field reports often list data that are not followed widely in generalized studies. It has nothing to do with new or old. Of course you might have suggested that the studies of the smelting data had been discredited. I don't know that it has, but were it so it would be important newer information. However, saying that newer information that doesn't mention something negates older information that does isn't very convincing. Coe mentioning the mirrors does not equate to confirming the issue of metals.

Brant,

Why don't you know if that information has been discredited? What exactly do you know about it?

[Confidential Informant]

Why don't you know if that information has been discredited? What exactly do you know about it?

The unspoken point, of course, being that you have no such information either, thus the lame attempt to shift the focus.

I made the assertion. You asked for proof by way of a citation, I gave it. The burden now rests with you disprove it or show that additional evidence has overturned it. Your reaction suggests that you are unable to do so at this point.

The fact that he doesn't know about it speaks to two possible answers: 1. It hasn't been overturned, thus there is nothing to know. 2. As he's already pointed out, it's irrelevant to his actual argument. His supposition was made in order to merely provide a mechanism which would allow the Nephite to pariticipate in the burgeoning trade and the subsequent social caste system which it created. His thesis doesn't rest on the presence of metallury and metal working, that's merely a convenient device to give them access. It could very easily have been some other device, unrelated to metalurgy, which provided that access.

C.I.

[beastie]

Coe is not completely silent on the subject of Mesoamerican metallurgy.

Quotes from The Mayan:

From the time of their initial contact with the Maya, the Spaniards learned to their bitter disappointment that there were no sources of gold and silver in the Maya lowlands, and the foreign colonizers soon came to look upon the region as a hardship post.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Brant,

It's going to take a bit to get over my momentary shock at you suggesting that Coe's books, Mexico and The Mayan, which were meant to be overviews of those two areas of ancient Mesoamerican history, would actually overlook something as crucial and fundamental as iron smelting because he wasn't 'particularly interested'.

I find it much easier to fathom that Coe or Schele would not be sufficiently interested in metallurgy to spend time on it than to suggest that they never said anything about it because they don't know any better. Remember - others did. Certainly it isn't because there is no evidence at any time. Why do you think Coe is silent?

By the way, I just noticed that your answer to a question about smelting - where you made a great point of making sure that we spoke of smelting - was to speak of gold. Not copper, nor iron, but gold. So your research into Coe confirmed that he said absolutely nothing about smelting. This simply confirms that your attempt to use Coe to discredit a published source on smelting was incorrect and continues to be incorrect. You cannot turn iron into gold. The alchemists couldn't do it and you are having no better luck.

How may we summarize this thread - which is no moving away from topic?

1) As much as you would like it, you cannot claim that the Maya were Lamanites. As for the Lamanites being Maya, you have to deal with the years from 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. and remember that this was a period of apostasy that resulted in the remaining Nephites fleeing their city. You haven't done any of those things.

2) You suggest that Maya religious iconography should have been the topic of Nephite exhortations. This contradicts the evidence from the Bible and therefore is contrary to how known history works. How did you respond? You used your "logic" to suggest that the world had to revolve the way you say it should in spite of the evidence that it has not.

3) You have attempted to accuse me of hiding facts in an article. You missed the point of the article and the context and simply assumed that since I didn't mention the issue that I never mention the issue (ergo, I hide it). That is demonstrably incorrect on both the mention and the nature of the argument.

4) You asked for evidence of smelting you didn't think you would get - but you did. Then you decided that it was contradicted by "more recent" scholarship. The problem is that the more recent scholarship you cited didn't talk about it at all. In other words, you have absolutely no evidence for your assertion, and you incorrectly used sources that did not say what you implied they did.

That isn't a very good track record.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

So one would think that before using an admittedly controversial mechanicism to prove a point, he would have done some background checking.

Excuse me. Background checking? From someone who asserted that two different authors were firmly against smelted metals when they never mentioned it? Please remind me what you mean by background checking?

As for my use of the material on smelting- I haven't read it. I can't say first hand. I know what the linguistic evidence is and I know that linguists are pretty confident that if people have a word for something they use it. I also know that the difference between what we believe today about archaeology and what we believe next week depends on what is found in the meantime. The record is quite full of surprising finds that rewrite conventional archaeology. That is the reason why most sholars of archaeological data will say what hasn't been found - but not what couldn't have existed. That is a very different position than the absolutist position you are taking (without being able to cite anyone - I happen to know that they are out there - but for all of your desire to cite people, you are going on hearsay on this one).

[beastie]

I find it much easier to fathom that Coe or Schele would not be sufficiently interested in metallurgy to spend time on it than to suggest that they never said anything about it because they don't know any better. Remember - others did. Certainly it isn't because there is no evidence at any time. Why do you think Coe is silent?

See my post immediately prior to this one.

It's interesting that you embrace the concept that new religions heavily borrowed iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, but now you scorn the idea that new religions also have to guard against heavily borrowing more than iconography from the pre-existing, usually dominant, religion, and this is what founders of new religions often guard against.

It isn't interesting because you are misunderstanding. I suppose I am not surprised. You have created a scenario in your head and are finding any possible way to defend it despite the fact that the textual evidence and evidence from social history is against you.

1: Cultures do borrow iconography. This is a well accepted fact and you supported that fact with the evidence from the catacombs. You even admitted to it, while subscribing to the interesting theory they one could predict what cultural icons could be borrowed - a point that very few iconographers would attempt.

2: It is a historical fact that the most dangerous religion is the one that is closest to yours. Read history. Go to any church in America with an anti-anything campaing and find me one that is concerned with Jainism. Since we are talking history, go through the Bible and show me how the Israelite prophets argued against Osiris.

On this point, I am citing accepted principles and known histories. You are returning to "if I were a duck." I prefer the historians, thank you.

Yes, the most dangerous religion is the one closest to yours, and in Mesoamerica, that would be the Mayan/Olmec religion. What other candidate was there? You seem to be insinuating that the most dangerous religion was the apostate Nephite religion. Yet where do you think the ideas that apostasized the Nephite religion came from? Hint. Close religion.

Oddly, you recognize this argument when you use it, which I just pointed out to you, and you still don't seem to grasp. You state that one of the dangerous religions including teaching "false Christs". Which false Christs? Why, the Mayan leaders who dressed themselves in sacred garb!!! Gee, this almost sounds like the logic I'm using, except for the fact that you omit the fact that it doesn't appear that the mayan leaders were actually claiming to be Gods, but rather reaffirming their authority and central position in accessing the Otherworld by dressing in sacred garb. So look at your own logic. Dangerous religion, close to new religion. Dangerous idea threatening new religion - false Christ. Where did that idea come from? Mayan religion.

Once again - the vast majority of Nephites would have been, culturally and religiously, Mayan, prior to their conversion.

So sorry, you really don't understand much of the history, do you. The only time this has direct relevance is from 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. At that point the Nephite society was a lot smaller. At 200 B.C. we actually have a funnel where a limited number - not given in the text - leaves the region of Maya influence and heads to Zoque influence where they join with non-Maya influenced people who greatly outnumber them.

So, for over 600 years of Book of Mormon history, and the time period for which we begin to have more firm Maya evidence, your statement is incorrect. Completely incorrect.

Now, think about the issue of the Nephites leaving the city of Nephi. Suppose that we take the assumption that they left and their city was completely Mayanized. How much would a people who rejected that city have to teach against it? From 200 B.C. on, it was a moot point

You seem to be saying that the Lamanites were no longer an issue after 200 BC. Why would that be?

No. Once again you are having a hard time following an argument. I base the particular nature of the issues in early Nephite society to outside influences that are brought in by trade. I speculate that the reason that gold and silver were mentioned is that Nephi's ability to work metals would have led to a competitive advantage. All of those things explain the text.

In another place (where it was much more relevant than the paper you were reading) I note the problem of a lack of metal. However, as Confidential Informant noted, there are hints. It is a very dangerous thing in archaeology to base an entire article on something that hasn't been found - yet. The Teotihuacanos and their feathered serpent temple were wonderfully peaceful people , until they found the sacrificed Teotihuacano warriors in the temple. Since there is linguistic evidence that has a word for metal very early, I am not too worried about not finding metal-working yet. Since I see it as a craft giving the Nephites a trade advantage, I wouldn't expect it to be widespread.

However, the analysis was based on the influence of culture and trade. Working gold and silver was a hypothesized mechanism. You do see the difference, do you not?

See my comments to CI. Why in the world would you choose an admittedly controversial mechanicism to demonstrate your basic point? And why would you ever, ever, publicly share this mechancism in any venue without being scrupulous enough to qualify that mechanicism?

3) Your assumption about universalism is that it is a unique philosophical conception that is available only in the time period of Joseph Smith. Apart from that particular issue, how do you support or deny universalism archaeologically? Lacking a text - please tell me where I would find it. In the Book of Mormon it is an argument that flows naturally and directly from the denial of the atoning Messiah. Is that the context in the 19th century? Are you sure that they are structurally and functionally the same?

Tell me, how have we defined the religious context, content, of the Mayan religion in the first place? That will answer your question. "lacking a text". How would you clearly define any religious content without the aid of a text (didn't we go over this ad nauseum already???) If Lamanites are the "others", then we do have text and history for them, don't we?

[beastie]

Excuse me. Background checking? From someone who asserted that two different authors were firmly against smelted metals when they never mentioned it? Please remind me what you mean by background checking?

As for my use of the material on smelting- I haven't read it. I can't say first hand. I know what the linguistic evidence is and I know that linguists are pretty confident that if people have a word for something they use it. I also know that the difference between what we believe today about archaeology and what we believe next week depends on what is found in the meantime. The record is quite full of surprising finds that rewrite conventional archaeology. That is the reason why most sholars of archaeological data will say what hasn't been found - but not what couldn't have existed. That is a very different position than the absolutist position you are taking (without being able to cite anyone - I happen to know that they are out there - but for all of your desire to cite people, you are going on hearsay on this one).

First, apparently you missed my earlier post so I will repeat it.

Coe is not completely silent on the subject of Mesoamerican metallurgy.

Quotes from The Mayan:

QUOTE

From the time of their initial contact with the Maya, the Spaniards learned to their bitter disappointment that there were no sources of gold and silver in the Maya lowlands, and the foreign colonizers soon came to look upon the region as a hardship post. Yet the native inhabitants, to whom the yellow metal was of little value and in fact unknown until about AD 800, had abundant resources which were of far greater importance to them in their daily life, in their rituals, and in their trade. (p 290)

Coe then explains what goods were truly important to the Mayan: flint, obsidian, salt, jade, quetzal feathers, and marine shells.

Coe does mention gold later in the book, during the post-classic period.

QUOTE

The last of the Maya kings wore a crown of gold, and gold disks in his ears from which golden pendants hung down to his shoulders. He had bands of pure gold on his arms and golden finger-rings, and his blue sandals were covered with golden bells. (p 184)

From his book Mexico, Coe states:

QUOTE

The introduction of metallurgy into Mexico took place towards the end of the classic period, or at the beginning of the post-classic, but only had a slight effect upon the development of native civilizations, in contrast to its history in South America and in the Old World. (p 129)

Of course, later, gold did figure into their productions. In discussing the Tarascans (post classic)

QUOTE

The most astonishing of their productions were paper-thin obsidian earspools and labrets, faced with sheet gold and turquoise inlay, but they were master workers in gold and silver, and in bimetallic objects using both of these precious substances. (p 157)

Brant,

How long have you been in this field? How much time and effort have you put into your theories? And you haven't read the material on smelting?????? As you and CI have made clear, I don't have anywhere near your background in this. And yet I'm held to a standard above yours??? You give a formal presentation, a talk that is published on the internet, use a mechanicism you haven't fully researched to demonstrate your basic point, and you're criticizing me????

[beastie]

Mayan Metallurgy

Schele, from A Forest of Kings:

There are certain things about the Maya landscape, about life in the tropics, and about the kind of

[juliann]

Brant,

How long have you been in this field? How much time and effort have you put into your theories? And you haven't read the material on smelting?????? As you and CI have made clear, I don't have anywhere near your background in this. And yet I'm held to a standard above yours??? You give a formal presentation, a talk that is published on the internet, use a mechanicism you haven't fully researched to demonstrate your basic point, and you're criticizing me????

This sounds like the inerrancy version of scholarship. You are working overtime to be unpleasant to someone who is trying very hard to be responsive. I have yet to be in a seminar where even an internationally recognized scholar hasn't said "I don't know". I don't know what universe you inhabit other than a very rude one but your demands and shrill scolding to the obviously most patient and civil person on this board is inane. I suggest you spend some time in a PhD program and observe some scholars.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

How long have you been in this field? How much time and effort have you put into your theories? And you haven't read the material on smelting??????

Over 30 years. Coe has been in it longer, but he didn't mention smelting either. I notice that you didn't bother to read the post where I did recognize that Coe spoke of gold - and that I was well aware of it - and that it isn't smelting.

So - you still want to argue against a discovery about which you known nothing by citing someone who is talking about something else entirely. I am not convinced.

Yes, the most dangerous religion is the one closest to yours, and in Mesoamerica, that would be the Mayan/Olmec religion. What other candidate was there? You seem to be insinuating that the most dangerous religion was the apostate Nephite religion. Yet where do you think the ideas that apostasized the Nephite religion came from? Hint. Close religion.

OK. This is the last. If you can write this with a straight face, I have finished. You understood very well earlier in the conversation that "close" meant similar and not proximate. Now you have shifted your definition in an attempt to turn it around. The attempt is transparent and not worth any more response. You continue to demonstrate a remarkable inability to grasp simple issues from history and attempts such as this to salvage a position by recreating a meaning or shifting focus have become tiring. Adieu.

[Addictio]

Let me explain something, Brant, and probably more than once.

Earlier I said:

Every time a Lamanite self-identifies, he does so in terms of an Israelite origin.

To which you replied:

One of the first things historians need to do is question their sources. Who wrote the Book of Mormon - Lamanite or Nephite? When the "self-identity" was stated, who crafted it, the person putatively making the statement or the person making the record? Please support your position.

When you do this, Brant, you're just wasting our time. Instead of waxing pedantic and asking rhetorical questions, like whether a Nephite or Lamanite wrote the text, why not just make a point, if indeed you have one? I can't believe you honestly don't know the difference. I've since given you two examples, Lamoni and Ammonihah. Instead of providing an actual argument and conclusion that the reports are not credible or accurate, even when pressed, you offer nothing definite or even useful as a response to the above assertion.

When I ask what follows from the author being a Nephite (meaning what your point is), you say:

What follows in the rest of the world is that the recordkeepers write history according to their own interests and worldview. Do you know any exceptions to this in the ancient world?

How much of this do I have to wade through, then, before you say something specific, and interesting? (This is what I mean, btw, about you constantly speaking in generalities.) Your first sentence is a truism of such generality that, until you use it to support a specific claim or point, lacks sufficient content to be meaningful. When I press you about Lamoni (actually it's his father) saying his fathers came from Jerusalem, asking for some reason not to take the statement at face value, i.e., that the speaker actually believed what he is reported saying, you end up responding with this:

He may have believed that. There are lots of cities in Mesoamerica and lots of people with lots of ancestry. However, it is also in the interests of a Nephite historian to emphasize their particular definition of culture.

Yes, and? So after wading through all that buildup, I get a noncommital "maybe" with a reminder that Nephite writers have an interest in emphasizing "their particular definition of culture." Yes, and? So what was the worthwhile point of your first response, above, then?

I guess it was merely to allow yourself to hold forth for a while and then say nothing clear or interesting e.g., about the accuracy or correctness vel non of the assertion I made about the text. (Hmm, perhaps if you tried as hard for clarity and precision as you do to display your uhm, learning, it would help some.)

Again, Brant, how do you expect anyone meaningfully to agree or disagree, in the abstract, with the sorts of conclusory pronouncements and prescriptions you so frequently make, unless and until you do something specific with them? Is it true or false, correct or not, for example, that it is in the interests of Nephite writers "to emphasize their particular definition of culture"? Yep, that sure sounds good... Now tell us what it means, if you'd like. (The reason no one but you knows what that actually means, btw, Brant, in the context of my pending assertion about the text, is not because you're a trained historian, bringing to bear some deep insight or specialized knowledge, it's just because you happen to be expressing yourself extremely poorly.)

Ah, speaking of which, you asked about my training. I dislike doing this, talking credentials, as it were, but will answer. My undergrad was in philosophy, I have a masters and JD in law. I'm not a historian, professional or otherwise, but did have some grad-level coursework in philosophy of history, philosophy and history of science, historiography, legal theory and logic of scientific inquiry. Took a lot of classical greek as an undergraduate, w/ some Herodotus, Thucydides, but mostly Plato and Euripydes. (Ah, life was good once.)

OK, I might as well respond to this as well, while I'm at it. You said:

Perhaps it would be easier if you let us know what your training in history might be. While I agree that one should support positions, I understand that you are trained in the law. I suspect that should you be discussing points of law I might not question whether or not you were interpreting law correctly.

On principles of history, I do have some background - except you don't like it when I appeal to such training.

I don't mind your invoking or even touting your education or training, Brant. I 'm bothered sometimes by the way you try to use it in arguments, but I'll go into that below. If you and I were discussing law, btw, we'd be very bored. Here's what my sensibilities are like on this stuff. Yeah, I do dislike frequent appeals to one's own education and/or expertise as the basis of a person's argumentation. Sometimes perhaps it becomes necessary to say something along those lines to people, but I rather prefer it when people show rather than tell. That said, I have some sympathy for situations where a person needs to invoke education, training or specialized knowledge as a way of making clear his or her take on the nature of the issues or the nature of the disagreement.

Speaking of which, I think some of the tension and occasional acrimony in our past exchanges is related to our differing perceptions about what is often going on when you claim, in the course of an argument or discussion, that your education, experience or training validate your views or position. In that connection, your comment above about how you wouldn't be inclined to question my position on "points of law" is telling, seems to me. I don't know if you actually believe this Brant, but my take is that you often behave as if your positions on and arguments about a vast array of issues should be entilted to some kind of automatic deference or presumption of correctness. (To be sure, there are plenty of issues and arguments that can best be assessed and sometimes their merits heavily determined by considering foremost the weight or consensus of expert opinion. People don't always agree on which issues those are, obviously, nor upon the scope of the expert topics or issues. Outside of the law, there is no "objective" or standardized test for determining when some issue is amendable to, or can or should be resolved by, expert opinions.) Problem is, I think your frequent mode of argumentation is to characterize as many differences as possible as disagreements over isssues that should (or can only) be resolved by expert opinion, or by appeal to expert authority. Your own authority or opinion, usually, or some claimed consensus of opinion or practice by others you invoke as experts.

To me, btw, what you were doing above was a rather clumsy and comic (and irritating) example of just that method of argumentation. I make a rather simple assertion about a feature of the text and your immediate, auto-pilot response reads like a pretentious sales promotion of your own soon-to-be-announced "opinion" which turns out, after all that windup, to be inherently, painfully subjective in character. Also comic because, for all your pronouncing, you end up not even staking out a relevant position. Ok, enough is enough.

Maybe I'll come back later sometime, and make some more comments about expert opinions; hmm, perhaps even adverting to the law.

All that said, and aside, I want also to make clear to you and anyone else reading that I respect you as a person and thinker. Some of my occasional irritation at you, I suppose, results from that.

[juliann]

Let me explain something, Brant, and probably more than once.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I confess that I dislike discussing anything with you because I find it difficult to work around the nastiness in the posts and get to anything that looks like substance. I doubt that I will continue.

At this point we are discussiing Lamanite identity. The question of self-identification is interesting, but never tells us how the text uses that term. Rather than mix issues, let's start with whether "Lamanite" functions as an exonym. Here is some analysis of:

Jacob 1:13

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

One of the important parts of creating a viable community is its self-definition. Our discussion on this point begins with an important sociological boundary that is not explicitly mentioned but which is crucial for understanding the Nephite self-definition. At this historical point, the Nephites' natural boundary is geographical--their village and its lands--all inhabited by people who look to Nephi as their leader. They constitute a single religious, social, political, and economic community. (For a discussion of the town center and its dependent rural areas, see John L. Sorenson, Nephite Culture and Society, edited by Matthew R. Sorenson (Salt Lake City: New Sage Books, 1997), 148.) This fact, while logical, is a significant departure from the sociological development of Christianity in the New Testament where the new religion had to establish itself inside the physical and conceptual boundaries of multiple towns, each containing multiple factions. The New Testament Christians formed a religious community, but continued to participate in their former political, economic, and, to some extent, social communities. The Nephite group is uniform at this point, since its religious, political, and conceptual boundaries were all coterminous.

The language used to describe the boundaries separating inside from outside can tell us much about how the community sees itself and how it defines the others with which it must deal. Being a Nephite meant living in a distinct place, being ruled by a single individual, and sharing the same religion. It is reasonable that the Nephites would have continued the Old World tradition of a culture oriented to the group rather than the individual. As social scientists Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh explain:

In contemporary American society the question "Who are you?" is a question about what uniquely characterizes an individual. It is a question that only the individual can really answer. In collectivist societies, however, identity normally derives from and traces back to the group in which one is embedded. One is "of Nazareth," or "of Cyrene," identifying the place/community in which identity resides. At a more specific level, one is "son of Joseph," or "son of Abraham." Thus, identity is family identity. When persons did not behave in accord with the expectations of the group in which they were embedded, confusion reigned. (Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 43.)

The Nephites would thus have seen "insiders" (themselves and their community members) in collective terms but also would have seen outsiders in the same way. Thus Jacob notes, "the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites." Lamanite is a collective term here, rather than a tribal designation. It corresponds to an internal collective term "Nephite" that also is not a tribal designation. The way in which Jacob phrases this distinction may be instructive as well. The implication is of a greater number of Lamanites who can be distinguished from the Nephites only in that anyone who does not fall is not a Nephite can be summed up as a "Lamanite." Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies at Yale University, notes that "the insider/outsider language invariably implies a negative perception of the outside society, even when the immediate function of the dualistic expressions is to reinforce the internal ordering of the group." (Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 95.)

Even at this very early date, the connotations of Lamanite are absolutely pejorative. The "Nephite = good/Lamanite = bad" correlation is sufficiently well known from the Book of Mormon to need no documentation. Even modern readers quickly adopt this same attitude. The early social development of Nephite society was built on a natural geo-political/religious boundary that was reinforced by creating the insider/outsider terminology of "Nephite and Lamanite." Of course, this terminology does not mean that all Lamanites actually were "bad"--only that, because of the necessary social distinctions developed within the Nephite community, all outsiders were seen negatively and labeled with this collective name of "Lamanites."

Jacob's information also communicates the fact that, within the larger community, a kin-based organization continued. Among the (collective) Nephites were specific kin divisions. This internal kin-based organization appears to have strong parallels in the Mesoamerican context. Formative sites already show evidence of internal organizations, according to Kent V. Flannery, a professor of archaeology at the University of Michigan: "Shortly after 600 B.C., the village of Moyotzingo, Puebla, was divided into at least two residential areas. . . . At Naranjito there seemingly were eastern and western residential areas." (Kent V. Flannery, "Two Possible Village Subdivisions: The Courtyard Group and the Residential Ward," in The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery (New York: Academic Press, 1976), 73). While these early divisions also seem to be status-related, the principle of the internal divisions is the same. Later Maya political organizations also appear to have urban geographical distinctions based on hereditary clans. (Linda Schele and Peter Mathews, The Code of Kings (New York: Scribner, 1998), 299.)

The religious history of the Quich

[beastie]

Here's another Coe statement, from Breaking the Mayan Code:

What is important to remember is that all this civilization was created with a technology which really was on a Stone Age level.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I know I promised that the last one was the last - but I couldn't resist these further examples of the quality of your arguments. I am at the point where they are actually funny.

But you're simply ignoring the origin of that first apostate movement. What influenced it? The Mayan religion.

I agree that the social structures that were increasing in that area were an influence - and that influence is clearly seen in the apostate religion. Is there a reason why you continue to ignore that?

You also have ignored the fact that you, yourself, stated that the people who created the "false Christs" apostate version of the new religion were borrowing from the very same religion I state they would borrow from.

Even when you are close you are still wrong. Please remember that there is a difference between the city of Nephi and Zarahemla. The false Christs appear in Zarahemla where they had lost their religion prior to the Nephites showing up. Ergo they weren't Nephite apostates. The second piece of information you insistently miss is that Zarahemla wasn't in Maya territory. Your statement that it was "the very same religion" is therefore necessarily incorrect because you are insisting that it was Maya - which is incorrect.

BTW, now you want a statement from Coe that uses the word "smelting"???? And was your face straight when you read the stone age comments and still picked that nit?

beastie: Were you not the one who made the issue of smelting? Please tell me how late gold is a dismissal of early smelting. That was your point, not mine. It doesn't follow. Even your general statements of stone age versus metal using are correct in the large picture but incorrect in the specifics. Remember, we are dealing with an archaeological artifact. Are you suggesting it was faked? Are you suggesting that it was never found? Are you suggesting that the chemical analysis was incorrect?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that because the two authors you read didn't mention it, it must not exist. Do you understand how silly that sounds?

OK - I will be stronger next time. I fully anticipate another interesting reply, but I really do have give this up.

[Addictio]

I appreciate the excellent post, Brant. It's nice to see you use the "collectivist" and the "high context" considerations you've mentioned in connection with a discussion of the current "others" reading. I know some of this regarding the "all those who would go" language is inserted from your earlier discussion, but I hadn't seen it put together with the "exonym" argument. Thanks for including the latter analysis.

Note to Beastie: I haven't been following your discussion of the religious context issue closely, but it does seem to me you're right that the religious competition from indigenous religion wouldn't simply disappear with the move to Zarahemla (Santa Rosa per Sorenson). Downriver and fairly closeby is Chiapa de Corzo, for example, a much larger ceremonial site, as Matheny notes. While both are outside the Maya area, and less may be known about the contemporary indigenous religion there, there's no reason to suppose (despite those amnesiac, atheist "Mulekites"?) there was none, or that it had no similarity to the Maya religion, per Diehl on the Olmec.

[beastie]

Let's do a bit of review, shall we?

I brought up context, because it was the notion sorely lacking in the iconography discussion, which Brant tried to resurrect. Context is also relevant to my current point. To illustrate how crucial context is, I used an example from Brant that was connected to the thread's topic. Brant has tried to demonstrate a close connection between Mayan culture and what is described in the BoM. It becomes pointless to analyze that connection between Nephites and the Mayan culture, because Nephites aren't really Mayan at all, although living in the Mayan region (or on the edge of the Olmec zone, which was still influenced by the Mayan culture, or vice versa). So I want to focus on Lamanites, since they, under the "political grouping" notion, are simply everyone else in the area. Yes, I understand there were different regions/dialects, but Coe makes clear that there are basic traits common to the entire region, nonetheless. I will let him speak for himself again:

Coe:

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.  Most of them have resisted with remarkable tenacity the encroachments of Spanish american civilization, although in the past few decades thoese have taken an increasingly violent and repressive form.  Besides their numbers and cultural integrity, the Maya are remarkable for an extraordinary cohesion.  Unlike other more scattered indigenous peoples wihin Mexico and Central America, at the time of the Conquest the maay were confined with one exception (the Huaxtec) to a single, unbroken area that includes all of the Yucatan Peninsula, Guatemala, Belize, parts of the Mexican states of Tabasco and Chiapas, and the western portion of Honduras and El Salvador. Such homogeneity in the midst of such a miscellany of tongues and peoples testify to their relative security from invasions by other native groups - the Aztecs, for instances, never extended their emppire to include any part of Mayan terrority, although they had important trading relationships with them.

There are few parts of the world where there is such a good "fit" between language and culture: a line drawn around the mayan-speaking peoples would contain all those remains, and hieroglyphic texts, assigned to the ancient Maya civilization.  It would be an error, though, to think of these people as existing in some kind of vacuum.  (then he notes the error of thinking the Mayan were the "culture givers" to the rest of Mexico and Central America)

All the Mesoamerican Indians shared a number of traits which were more or less peculiar to them and absent or rare elsewhere in the New World: hieroglyphic writing, books of fig-bark paper or deerskin which were folded like screens, a complex permutation calendar, knowledge of the movement of the planets (especially Venus) against the background of the stars, a game played with a rubber ball in a special court, highly specialized markets, human sacrifice by removal of the head or heart removal, an emphasis on self sacrifice by blood drawn from the ears, tongue, or penis, and a highly complex, pantheistic religion which included nature divinities as well as deities emblematic of royal descent.  Also in all Mesoamerican religions was the idea of cosmic royal descent.  Also in all Mesoamerican religions was the idea of a cosmic cycle of creation and destruction, and of a universe oriented to the four directions with specific colors and gods assigned to the cardinal points and to the center

This bears repeating because Brant has tried to neuter this argument by claiming too many differences between the subgroups to draw generalizations - like the one Coe just drew, of course.

My example of context was to note that Brant omitted a very crucial detail in his paper that expounds this very topic.

Brant's quote:

There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.

I pointed out that the context entirely lacking from this talk is the fact that there is no evidence of such metal working skills in this time period and area. CI rushed to Brant's defense with a couple of footnotes from Sorenson:

The possibility that smelted iron was also used is enhanced by a find a Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico by Sigvald Linne, the famous Swedish archaeologist, of a pottery vessel which had been used for smelting a "metallic-looking" mass which contained iron and copper. --  "Mexican highlnad cultures," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 7, n.s., 1942, p. 13

The same researcher found a piece of iron in a tomb at Mitla, Oaxaca, which he considered of smelted metal. --  "Zapotecan antiquities," ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM OF SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM, PUBL. 4, n.s., 1938, p. 75.

Comment to Brant: note who brought up smelting, as evidence in your behalf???? My comment was that there were no metal working skills in that period. The smelting became a particular topic due to these copied footnotes which, apparently, no one, not you or CI, knows a thing about other than reading them as is in Sorenson's references.

You proceed to criticize me for referring to Coe and Schele as having stated that there were no metal working skills in that time and period. When I provide quotes that demonstrate they did, indeed, make such statements, now you reject them because they don't have the word "smelting" in them. (as if "stone age" isn't good enough).

The hilarity continues...

Brant says my basic argument is flawed because the Nephites wouldn't be worried about the Mayan religion, they would be worried about the religion most similar to their own. And what religion is that? Why the apostate Nephite religion. And where did the apostate Nephite religion come from? Why, from Brant's own words, from the Mayan religion. The Mayan leaders presented themselves in sacred garb, hence, the "false christs". Yes, I know that I am generalizing the term "Mayan religion", but Coe and Schele's word that there were certain shared traits across that entire region is good enough for me. Yet, somehow, when I ask why we wouldn't see Nephite concern about other practices or beliefs that could taint the new religion, Brant says this is nothing but "intuition" on my part, not history. And they wouldn't be worried about Mayan religion, but apostate Nephite religion. Class, if you haven't been paying attention, let's repeat: where did the apsotate Nephite religion come from? Why, from the "tainted" combination of pre-existing Mayan religious ideas with the new religion. (ie, false christs) Are we dizzy yet?

For some reason, Brant limits the possible effect of Mayan/Lamanites to up to 200 BC, without explanation. For some reason, Brant has interpreted my comments to mean that I expect Nephites to talk about Mayan iconography? Unless you're using the word in a nontraditional way, I haven't said anything of the sort. I've asked why we don't see Nephites preaching about the tainting influence of what was actually there in the region potentially influencing them. It's not iconography, it's their basic beliefs and practices that would possible taint the Nephite religion. And again, Brant understand this quite clearly when he uses his own "false christ" example, but somehow is incapable of understanding the very same logic when it works against the BoM.

But then, oddly, he states:

agree that the social structures that were increasing in that area were an influence - and that influence is clearly seen in the apostate religion. Is there a reason why you continue to ignore that?

Of course, by "social structures" you would mean influence including religious, correct? Then why do you dismiss my suggestion that we would see Nephites cautioning against those "social structures" (ie, religion, its beliefs and practices) that were present in the Mayan? Why is this nothing but silly "intuition"? If the Nephite apostate religion could include "false christs" (although the Mayan leaders weren't really presenting themselves as deity), then why would it not include othere elements? Why wouldn't they caution against embracing the idea that ritual bloodletting opens the portal to the Otherworld and feeds the gods therein, for example? You find one extraordinarly strained example (false christs means the Mayan leaders dressing in sacred garb) and reject a far more basic one.

(I'm skipping around a bit, sorry, trying to catch up)

Even when you are close you are still wrong. Please remember that there is a difference between the city of Nephi and Zarahemla. The false Christs appear in Zarahemla where they had lost their religion prior to the Nephites showing up. Ergo they weren't Nephite apostates. The second piece of information you insistently miss is that Zarahemla wasn't in Maya territory. Your statement that it was "the very same religion" is therefore necessarily incorrect because you are insisting that it was Maya - which is incorrect.

Did or did not that particular area share the same basic traits outlined by Coe? From what I've read, the Olmecs shared many similarities with the Mayan, to the point where some think of it as the 'mother culture' TO the Mayans.

[Addictio]

A few quick comments.

Brant says:

The assumption that the Book of Mormon is a low-context history that follows modern canons creates expectations of the text that are not applicable to ancient documents that follow a different model. Assuming that the Book of Mormon is modern and follows modern canons we might therefore assume that if no one ever says they aren't an Israelite that they must not be - ergo the argument Brent and Addictio pose. It is an argument built on an assumption of what the text ought to say, and built upon a modern definition of that "ought."

Speaking only for myself and not Brent, I think this mischaracterizes what I'm arguing. There is no need to assume the BoM is either ancient or modern. That may be argued for and concluded, but should not and need not simply be assumed. The best evidence of the kind of document it is should be and is reflected in its contents. (If there is any circular assuming here, note, it is being done by Brant. He "concludes" it is a high-context document in part because he assumes it came from the ancient world, like the New Testament. Once that assumption of temporal origin is made, of course, he believes he can treat it as if it were a high-context document.)

The BoM should rather be allowed to speak for itself regarding its contents and the express purposes of the writers. The Book repudiates, in myriad ways, the notion that the writers and their intended audience share the same immediate spatial or temporal context and social information. The major writers/editor Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, for example, all know it is being writtten to their future descendants, and to the modern-era Gentiles. That future audience is even seen in vision and and is repeatedly addressed directly. In this respect, let's remember, the BoM claims to be a unique document like no other in the world, including the New Testament. Given this uniquenss and the self-conscious spatio-temporal distance between writer and audience, Malina's categories are (1) completely inapposite for classifying an avowedly sui generis document, and (2) even if applied to the Book, would support the conclusion that it is a low-context document, and self-consciously so.

It appears Brant also mistakenly claims that my analysis of the "others" issue is based on mere assumptions about what a modern document "ought" to contain. It's not. As I emphasized in my Sunstone presentation, and directly to Brant in previous message board exchanges, the best arguments about what we can reasonably expect the Book to contain and mention are based on what it actually does contain and mention.

Finally, it appears Brant also misunderstands the exact nature of the argument about self-reporting Lamanites and uniform reports of descent from Israelite founders. Perhaps more later.