Mayan Lamanites

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Nothing new, is there. I will try to close a couple things.

You're right, we got side-tracked. Since you agree it is reasonable to say that the Lamanites participated in the Maya culture, then it is reasonable to see Nephite prophets warning against the false religion of the area. This was, indeed, the primary point of my thread, and I'm glad you returned to it. Initially you argued with me on this point, saying that it would actually be the apostate Nephite religion they would fight against. However, this simply moves the chess piece one square, since the apostate Nephite religion would have likely become apostate due to the taint of the dominant Mayan religion.

Except that you continue to misread both my argument and the data at hand. There is influence in the form of social pressures. Since that was part and parcel of religion, there is religious influence. That does not mean, however, that the gods of the foreign cultures were adopted. The process is quite different. I continue to refer you to Ugaritic religion as a key to understanding how the biblical prophets contend against foreign religions. You persistently ignore the evidence that rebuts your assumption and simply return to asserting the same old thing. It doesn't improve with repetition.

In regards to your last point, I have shared several quotes by notable Mayan scholars who state that:

QUOTE 

Although there were important variations in the different regions and periods of Mesoamerican history it is fair to say that certain general patterns of worldmaking, worldcentering, and worldrenewing were shared by nearly all Mesoamerican cultures.

Unless you are claiming that Nephites went entirely out of the Mesoamerican region, this point is moot.

Once again you are reading something in to your citations that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Of course Nephites participated in the overall culture. I count on that fact as an interpretive tool.

Here is the list of things it does not mean that you presume it does:

1) It does not mean that they all shared the same gods. This is known to be incorrect. Deities vary from culture to culture even though there are some similarities in some of them. Asserting that general similarity in religion equals uniformity in religion far exceeds the data at hand and the citations provided.

2) Participating in material culture does not necessarily indicate participation in intellectual culture. Participation is some aspects of intellectual culture does not mean wholesale adoption of the entire intellectual culture. Look at the relationship between Egypt and Israel. There are items that were adopted, and sometimes even images. However, there is no indication that Israelite religion adopted Egyptian gods. You are overreaching your data again.

3) The Maya are not all of Mesoamerica. You continue to use Maya as a shorthand for Mesoamerican culture. That would be similar to suggesting that Babylonian was the same as Assyrian, Israelite, and Egyptian. For all that there were some shared cultural traits, they were distinct. Conflating them muddies the waters. That is the reason that I continue to clarify the distinctions between Maya, Zoque, Teotihuacano, etc. It does make a difference - even though they are all Mesoamerican.

Your own article contradicts this point. To accept 'false Christs', inspired by the Mayan leaders dressed in sacred garb (not actually claiming to be Gods, of course), is a theological point.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting this issue, even after I have clarified it for you. This was in Zarahemla and comes as part of the conflict between the newly arrived Nephites and the Zarahemlaites who were already living there. The Zarahemlaites had lost their Israelite religion according to the text. Therefore the influence is not Maya, and the presence of the god-impersonators does not come from the Maya but from epi-Olmec culture. It was in place when the Nephites arrived, hence they have to deal with it. It says nothing about Nephite religion nor the later problems with apostasy from that religion.

And although you disparage my "intuition", the "fact" remains that the vast majority of those who became Nephites when Nephi converted them were products of the Mayan culture and religion, as had their ancestors been.

Let's see. You are going to argue external influence based on the populaton that joined with the original Nephi? You are going to take village religion and suggest that it equates to state religion? You are going to suggest that when those who joined Nephi converted that they did so unwillingly? I suggest you take a look at the history of conflicts between religions. While there are certainly holdouts, there are a large number of people who simply accept the new gods and go back to farming. Those are precisely the type of people we expect around 550 B.C. Using that as your model for 100 B.C. ignores tremendous social differences and a change of location that occurred in between. Once again you are overreaching the data.

In regards to the "evidence" - how can I refute a piece of evidence when all the information I have about it is two brief footnotes copied over and over from Sorenson's original article?

If you will remember, Brent informed me that one of Sorenson's citation on copper sheathing was controversial. While I can understand the reason for the controversy and would like to know more, my response was to accept the evidence without questioning whether or not the sources he referenced knew what they were talking about. What I would expect you do to is accept evidence until you have contrary data - not reject it because it doesn't fit your theory.

You cannot rely on a text that exaggerates, omits crucial information, etc, for accurate historical information, even if it is an authentic text.

I understand that this is your opinion. It is not one shared by ethnohistorians. I refer you to H.B. Nicholson's Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. He examines the extant information on Quetzalcoatl and extracts what he considers a historical person from the various exaggerated texts. His work stands in direct contradiction to your statement. It is, by the way, held in very high regard. Robert Carmack, a note Quiche specialist, used Nicholson's methods as the foundation for his Quichean Civilization a point I know from personal conversation with Carmack.

[juliann]

I haven't denied being seven of niine. I wanted a new name to indicate my new focus on one particular topic. It is true I often end up having to repeat myself in these conversations. I don't know what else to do when Brant so often completely ignores the points I've made.

You haven't denied it? How noble. As you admitted...you purposely used another name to "focus" (aka putting your respondent at a disadvantage) while carrying on a debate with Brant under another name on Z. You must be losing badly to have to stoop to that level. Sock puppets are usually banned here...if there isn't a rule about cross posting to a board used by both parties to suckerpunch one of our posters there should be.

I've used three different notable mayan scholars who say basically the same thing.  Despite the variants in languages, and some variants in details, the Mesoamerican religions of all these groups shared certain fundamental principles.  I have yet to see Brant even recognize this point.  So I repeat it, sometimes using a different author.

You have to be kidding. Please have one of you tell us you are kidding. Brant is writing a commentary on the BOM, has extensive grad training and has been published...but you used three scholars! And you even talked about variants of a language you wouldn't recognize if it was yelled in your ear. All I can see here is a self-proclaimed victory because your respondent thinks your points are meaningless no matter how often you repeat your secondary sources.

[Calm]

A modern day analogy--

What do the LDS prophets preach against?

They warn against the social pressures of our society plus the apostate teachings of other Christian religions and some atheism. Rarely is there negative mention of the doctrines of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or other nonChristian religions. This version takes place even in areas where Christianity is not the majority religion in my experience. For those that are newly exposed to Christianity with the missionaries, they start from scratch rather than dealing with nonChristian beliefs.

Why, because all these are the ones that have the most effect on us who are already persuaded to believe in Christ. People dont' usually make great leaps when changing beliefs (except in the case of totally rejecting something without really replacing it), but are persuaded 'little by little'. It is the things that appear 'reasonable' to us that are the most damaging to our faith and wide divergence doesn't do that usually.

Since in past ages, society and religion were pretty much one and the same--the Nephite prophets were warning against the same things our prophets are warning against today (as is said over and over by our prophets, btw.)

[beastie]

Hope you all are enjoying a bit of Christmas Eve with your families. I will return to respond after the holidays.

I will say that I lurked on this board several weeks before deciding to post. I noticed several posters that I felt certain were ZLMB posters using different handles on this board, and I've never participated on a board where one was required to transfer a handle from a different board. Had I known, I certainly would have kept seven of niine. Regarding whether I was "losing" on ZLMB, I'm sure that depends on perspective, but it is bizarre to suggest I came here because I was "losing badly". (snicker) I actually came here because ZLMB is in its death throes, and Brant was the only believer who knew anything about this subject. I see the same is most likely true of ZLMB, sadly.

BTW, Brant, this thread demonstrates nicely one of my points to you. Notice how eagerly believers who have no background in the topic disregard the comments of Coe and Schele in favor of your comments, because you have a master's degree? Even in regards to metallurgy, despite your own admission you haven't studied it at all, and have no idea, along with CI, what your frequently repeated reference actually says? Doesn't that bother you just a tad?

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

In the spirit of a Merry Christmas I will wish you good cheer and a happy New Year. We'll take a break and enjoy the season's best.

[Addictio]

Fascinating argument you made in your next-to-last response to me, Brant. Let me first say what the critical position is, and then use that to explain what I think is mistaken about your argument.

Assume we have a Modern Author of the BoM, the term you use toward the end of your post. (Most critics likely believe the Modern Author is JS, but I'll use your generic term.) By this the critic means the composer of a story, not a reporter of past events. Accordingly, the critic's Modern Author (MA) is incapable of making individual errors with respect to past events and historical accuracy.

So individual instances of "authorial error" for the critic's MA are never mistakes in the accuracy of his reporting, but can only be mistakes in successfully creating verisimilitude. When he errs as an author, it is in failing to present imagined past events in a plausible way. His only individual "authorial errors" in the text are thus failures to persuade.

OK, so the two textual passages being discussed are the building of the temple in Second Nephi 5 and similar societal events reported there, and Ammon's conversation with King Lamoni's father in Alma. There the King says his fathers came from Jerusalem.

According to the critical MA position, the persuasion errror (error in verisimilitude) committed by the MA in Second Nephi is that the group he reports and describes arriving in the New World is too small to accomplish the things -- like building the temple -- they are reported accomplishing during Nephi's lifetime. The verisimilitude problem can be addressed by hypothesizing (as apologists now do) that there were Native American "others" present and encountered by the Lehites, who supplied the numbers necessary to build the temple and accomplish the other reported things. The textual support for this inference about past events includes the one Brant relies on: Nephi's reference to "all others who would go with him" when he separates from his brothers.

Brant is suggesting that the critic has a consistency problem in the way he/she interprets these two textual passages. As I read him, he's saying the critic can't have it both ways, she can't accuse the MA of making an "authorial error" by referring to unnamed "others" in the passage Brant relies on, and then turn around and rely, in support of a critical argument, on the text's consistency in reporting Lamanites as having Israelite ancestry everywhere else. He writes:

If you are going to suggest that "errors" in the text are due to the modern author, then you lose the ability to use the text as a source of meaning. If the meaning is dependent upon a modern author who doesn't handle the situation and shows his ignorance in places where errors are made, then that very inconsistency in the text tells you that it is dangerous to make arguments that rely upon textual consistency. In the case in point, if it is authorial error that has too many people leaving with Nephi rather than an actual record of "others," then how do you know that the self-identification of Lamanites as Israelites represents a reality of the text or an authorial error?

I think this is clearly wrong. In the first place, it is Brant, not the critic, who is claiming that in the phrase "all those who would go" the MA (actually, for the apologist it is not the MA but the ancient author) is referencing some sizeable and distinct group of "others." It is the apologists who claim that this phrase can be read as cryptically or obliquely referring to some indigenous group whom Nephi and his family have encountered and converted. To the critic, Brant and other apologists are seizing upon an insignificant, formulaic phrase and using it as evidence that Nephi was referencing a group of "others." Leaving the merits of that interpretation aside, we should at least be clear about who is claiming what. Critics are not claiming the passage refers to otherwise unmentioned "others." So Brant can't create an inconsistency in their position merely by claiming they do. Moreover, and more generally, as noted above, the critic is never sponsoring the MA as an accurate reporter or recorder of past historical events. So the critic is not claiming the MA committed an accuracy error in composing Nephi's narrative, but that the text should nevertheless be trusted on matters of accuracy in the self-reports of text-speakers' ancestry, like Lamoni's father.

In making his charge of inconsistency, Brant is thus projecting a problem the apologist faces upon the critic. It is the apologist alone who must face and address the alleged inconsistency of asking the reader, for example, to trust that Mormon is functioning as a straightforward and accurate reporter of historical events most of the time, but in the case of statements about Lamanites' Israelite ancestry, for example, is doing something else. It is the apologist who is sorting between the numerous passages in the text that he claims should be taken at face value and as accurate, and those in which certain reported events, like the statement of Lamoni's father, are instead additions resulting from the cultural identity of the recordkeeper. As I pointed out earlier on this thread, Bushman's account of Lamanite ideology takes all of the text's reports made by the Nephite recordkeepers about Lamanite beliefs at face value. If that is a na

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I understand that it may take you a while to respond. I will be patient. Of course it does not appear that time is going to get us any closer to a mutual understanding.

Accordingly, the critic's Modern Author (MA) is incapable of making individual errors with respect to past events and historical accuracy.

No - and here is where your response diverges from the context of the particular examples. There is a major difference between discussing the relationship of a text to a historical situation and discussing the internal "meaning" of the text.

If you assume that the text is historical, then it should fit into a context that is historical and the issues of textual consistency are not simply internal, but are external. When a text that has a known historical provenance is compared to what is known of the history represented in the text, issues of potential inconsistencies, silences, novelties or even errors are resolved against the more stable constant of the external data and the known tendencies of authors who write in ancient times and cultural assumptions.

On the other hand, the moment that you assume a modern author inventing a historical situation, all errors, silences, novelties and errors in the text are due to the modern author.

So we return to the basic issue of "others" in the text.

1) In the historical context, the Book of Mormon implies these others in several ways. We begin with the explicit statement of a set of others that cannot be easily explained by the text. The consistency of the text is that both in population and social complexity these "others" are confirmed in their presence even when not specifically identified. Their presence even explains reasons why certain sermons are given - such as the one Nephi requests of Jacob which talks about the Gentiles being the those who will save the Jews (Roper and Gee made this argument in an article at a Sperry symposium. I made the same argument at a FAIR conference).

When this internal evidence is compared to the historical situation it fits perfectly with the known archaeology of the area.

2) In the context of a modern author, all of the textual data that support the "others" become mistakes. The author didn't really mean to provide that information because it is inconsistent with the assumption of the presence of the modern author. We also have very specific instances of a few people mentioning lineage that are assumed to be normative for the entire text. This is in direct contrast to the evidence of the text that being a Lamanite is usually a politico-religious term, even though it also functions as a lineage label.

So in this construction, we begin with the assumption that the modern author made a historical mistake by claiming that all Amerindians were Israelites and that they were lineally only Nephites and Lamanites. That then requires that we consider all contrary evidence in the text to be an error made against the original error. This is the "true mistake," and all of the places that seem to contradict it are "real mistakes."

The problem with this analysis is that it is tied only to the text. Without an external anchor in history you have only the text. When you take the text itself as evidence, then you have to decide which mistake the author made was the one that really tells you what was happening. Is the consistency in reporting Lamanites as Israelites a mistake or is the implication of the others a mistake? How can you tell?

You might go to the 19th century for a background, but this won't be very helpful. If you take what the early Saints thought, then you are taking opinions after the fact and using them to discern the understanding of the creation of the document. That is difficult since the document clearly influenced their understanding, rightly or wrongly.

You might go to the ideas that existed prior to the creation of the text. This will be a little more helpful, but you will find major disconnections between the text and assumptions. For instance, the popular conception was that the American Indians were remnants of the lost 10 tribes. The Book of Mormon is singularly uninterested in the 10 tribes and begins 100 years after their loss. Already you have a major separation of the text from the preliminary assumption. Since the 19th century context doesn't fit the text either, we have a second problem, which is explaining why the modern author not only got his own text wrong (by picking which "wrong" you like and discarding the other "wrong" things as the ones that are truely wrong) - you have to also compare the text to a culture and explain how the text was also wrong for its production culture.

So individual instances of "authorial error" for the critic's MA are never mistakes in the accuracy of his reporting, but can only be mistakes in successfully creating verisimilitude. When he errs as an author, it is in failing to present imagined past events in a plausible way. His only individual "authorial errors" in the text are thus failures to persuade.

You see how it plays out? If the text is historical, then we have a context in which to anchor our understanding of the text and sort out what it is saying.

If you assume a modern author, you have to suggest that when the modern author was wrong in assuming that Amerindians were all Israelites that he was right, but when he suggested that there were "others," he was wrong. It is certainly possible that an author may be inconsistent, but if they author is inconsistent, how do you know which inconsistency should be the basis of your interpretation? Which wrong thing is the right wrong thing against which you can measure all other text to see if it is or is not consistent?

I think this is clearly wrong. In the first place, it is Brant, not the critic, who is claiming that in the phrase "all those who would go" the MA (actually, for the apologist it is not the MA but the ancient author) is referencing some sizeable and distinct group of "others." It is the apologists who claim that this phrase can be read as cryptically or obliquely referring to some indigenous group whom Nephi and his family have encountered and converted. To the critic, Brant and other apologists are seizing upon an insignificant, formulaic phrase and using it as evidence that Nephi was referencing a group of "others."

This argument would have merit except that the analysis of the "others" does not rely upon this verse alone. What the analysis of the text tells you is that you have an anomalous statement that there are "others" when the text virtually accounts for all named persons in the text. If there were no other evidence, this would be quite weak. However, beginning with this statement we find textual evidence of social complexity that exceeds the named people who went with Nephi.

If you allow the text thee possilbility of being historical, the presence of the "others" are declared obliquely in the text through the rather obvious social developments that require a larger population than the few named individuals. Ergo - the "others" that were mentioned have textual support in the social descriptions of the text.

If, however, you do not allow the text to be historical, then these "others" are simply an error the author makes, which is then followed by a similar error in describing social conditions that could not exist without the others. The modern author hypothesis must take data that are mutually supportive in the historical context and dismiss them as unrelated mistakes. All of the textual evidence that shows these "others" in action are mistakes, even though they are internally consistent. However, the ascription of Lamanite/Israelite is correct precisely because it is internally consistent. So there we have it, one internal consistency is always because the author made mistakes, but the other one is because the author did something intentionally (that was a mistake historically).

It really isn't a strong argument.

However, let's go one step further and look at the types of information that are encoded in a text. If we assume a modern writer attempting to recreate a historical situation we expect that they will be inconsisten in reporting that situation. They will get some things right, and some things wrong. What do they tend to get right? Those who write historical novels do a lot of research and they tend to get major things right. What they miss are smaller things of motivations, or cultural concepts/assumptitons that dramatically differ from modern expectations. So we would expect that in more obvious descriptions a modern author should be more or less correct, but that they would miss the smaller points where the author isn't paying attention to the ancient context because he/she is concentrating on something else. Those are the places where you can see a modern author making mistakes.

I can't read modern LDS novelists who write about the Book of Mormon in the Americas because they get so many things wrong - even when they have some correct. I couldn't read Gary Jennings' The Aztecs because there was so much that he just didn't get - even though he clearly had done a lot of research.

The problem with the kind of "errors" Addictio is suggesting are being made is that they are precisely the places where the author isn't paying as much attention. They are the places where it is easy to get things wrong - except that they are precisely right in a historical context. They are only "wrong" if you begin with the assumption that the author was modern and had already made a huge mistake in defining Amerindians. That assumption of the "big wrong" then requires that all of the other things that might otherwise be right must be wrong because they don't support the hypothesis of the "big wrong."

That is hardly good historical analysis. That is apologetics at its worst. It is apologetics for a different position, but apologetics none the less - and not good apologetics.

[added by edit: I should note that I don't see any reason not to accept the self-declaration of the few Lamanites who make it. That can easily be explained by the textual interest in that subject which makes the text contrary to assumption and hence worth entering. If everyone kinows that Lamanites are not usually Israelites, then find those that are becomes data sufficiently interesting to add. So any assumption made that I must be assuming an error is incorrect.]

[beastie]

I apologize for the length of this reply, and realize only the very interested will bother to read it. However, it seems to me that a more effective means of dealing with this conversation is to attempt to view each response in context of the entire thread, which takes some time to do. Otherwise, the thread starts jumping between topics in a confusing manner.

Brant maintains that since the Nephites moved around in the region, it is not possible to generalize about the cultural and religious background of the Lamanites, either. He specifically points to the fact that the Lamanites in the Zarahemla area were not Mayan. Yet, as Addictio has pointed out, the BoM makes clear that the Lamanites shared a certain

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Brant maintains that since the Nephites moved around in the region, it is not possible to generalize about the cultural and religious background of the Lamanites, either.

Nope - never said it. What I consistently point out is that calling the Nephites Maya is misleading, and really misleading when they move to another cultural area.

As for general cultural influence, I have a different argument with your interpretation. You are assuming that cultural influence must mean certain things - apparently an importation of Maya religion. On the other hand, I also assume cultural influence, but I find where it shows up in the text rather than deciding beforehand what ought to be there.

In the case of religious influence I have pointed out repeatedly that you are assuming a kind of religious influence that is atypical of human population interactions. I see no reason for special pleading - particularly to explain why there is no evidence to support your hypothesis.

Clearly, although this was a different area, and according to Brant, different culture and religion, the Lamanites viewed themselves as part of the same group that were called Lamanites from the very beginning.

See my response to Addictio.

Either the Lamanites or the Nephites viewed the Lamanites as having a consistent story and shared history, regardless of where they were located within Mesoamerica. To accept Brant

[beastie]

I'll come back later to some of your response which will require linking back to your earlier responses. But I can mention one quick point, which is the irony of you continuing to accuse me of misreading when you continue to read my posts so poorly, even when you quote me.

For example, I said that the Tikal event was notable because it initiated the idea of a war in which the victor replaced the rulers of the vanquished polity with members of their own leadership. I provided many quotes from Schele that supported this assertion, that what was new about Tikal was that to the victor went the spoils of the polity of the vanquished. Now you say that I am simply talking about initiation rites. This really is sloppy, particularly coming from someone who expects precision from others.

You even quoted me saying:

They could simply have taken captives from the pacifists. But most importantly, the missing context to this story is that, at the given time period, the conquerors would not be installing a new king from their own group in the vanquished city to begin with. That did not begin taking place until after the Tikal event, which is famous for the very reason that it began that sort of war.

Now you focus on initiation rites in your response.

Now you are misreading other parts of Mesoamerican history. There is no evidence that the rites of accension were tied to Teotihuacan - in fact, they shouldn't be because Teotihuacan did not venerate their kings as did the Maya. You have taking correct information about the way wars were fought and assumed that it meant a new form of installing a king. That is incorrect.

Please actually read and respond to what I say. I clearly stated that what was new with the Tikal event was that the victors replaced the rulership with members of their own group. I said nothing about a "new form of installing a king". I did not say, or imply, that their ritual changed. I stated that prior to Tikal, a victor would not have completely replaced the leadership of the vanquished city with members of their own group.

BTW, on this thread we've been discussing whether or not it is fair to call Lamanites Mayan, not Nephites. I'll come back later to your other points, but had to vent my frustration at the above immediately.

[juliann]

I'll come back later to your other points, but had to vent my frustration at the above immediately.

That is all you have been doing. How about actually responding to specific problems with your overgeneralizations based upon a few books you have read?

Fascinating. I wonder where you found that distinction? I would be very interested in the support you have for you position that when Maya dressed as the gods they were not impersonating the gods. Quite apart from how you use that information, I would love to see the evidence for it.

Well?

Please tell me how the rites of establishing a king were present before the system of kings was widespread.

Well?

I'll bet you are frustrated and Brant sums it up well:

I am suggesting that you over-generalize. You assume that all traits of a specific people are similar to all traits of all people - regardless of time period. You are making connections without controls. I would expect you (and myself) to criticize any apologist who did such things. You are not excused for a poor methodology just because of the side of the question you fall on.

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

Please actually read and respond to what I say.

I try, I really do. The problem I have is that when I pin you down on something you have said, you claim to be talking about something else entirely. In your last post you strongly suggested that there was a relationship between the sacrifice of captives and the Teotihuacano invasion. That was the reason you claimed you had a problem with my discussion of captives from Ammonihah. Please notice that the occurence of captives and sacrifice in this description.

You are now complaining that I am focusing on captives and sacrifice as part of accession rituals instead of whether or not the Teotihuacanos installed their own leaders. We could actually argue that point. There is evidence that they influenced the choice of the next king of Tikal, that king was legitmized through the Maya line - not just the Teotihuacano one (see Martin and Grube, Chronicles of the Maya Kings and Queens. So you argument is 1) technically incorrect (misinterpreted and misrepresented) and 2) absolutely irrelevant to the issue you were speaking about when you raised it.

[beastie]

I'll start out my post by following Juliann's example.

I earlier asked Brant two very specific questions.

Certainly they may have used nonpermanent media, but that does not give you the flexibility you seem to want to inject in this conversation. We are talking about a culture that wrote on metal plates, using a very advanced form of writing and literacy for literally centuries before the simplest forms of writing began to show up in Mesoamerica.

So my question to Brant is thus: are you saying that there is any sort of evidence that Mesoamericans had this sort of advanced form of writing and literacy for many centuries before they began writing on monuments and ceramics?

WELL?????

If you were to ask why Coe and Schele wouldn't mention it, you could look at the statements you posted where they mentioned that Mesoamericans weren't metal users. That is quite true, and true even if everyone accepts Linne's find as evidence that there was knowledge of mettalurgy. They were discussing the general orientation to stone implements rather than metal. They were not intending their statements to be a categorical denial of any possible data. You are misrepresenting them and confusing the issues. You are demonstrating the truth of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This is a confusing statement. Are you saying that it would be accurate to label a group

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I'll start out my post by following Juliann's example.

I earlier asked Brant two very specific questions.

So my question to Brant is thus: are you saying that there is any sort of evidence that Mesoamericans had this sort of advanced form of writing and literacy for many centuries before they began writing on monuments and ceramics?

How did you miss my answer on this? I cited the evidence of epi-Olmec and the rather well accepted idea that writing would developed on non-permanent media before it was codified in permanent media. I also noted that there are fragments of several scripts where there isn't sufficient breadth of symbols to hazard a translation. In other words, I answered this. Now I have answered it again.

Against this evidence, which I know to be accepted by a larger number of Mesoamerican linguists and archaeologists we have your unsupported assertion that there were no such scripts. I am not willing to give up the data to accept your opinion.

This is a confusing statement. Are you saying that it would be accurate to label a group

[juliann]

Sacrifices are not the same as warfare. The Maya rites were in place and have nothing to do with Teotihuacan. What Teotihuacan did came later.

Misreading and misunderstanding. Toss in a little misrepresentation. How can I possibly argue with this?

Juliann: Easy. Just chant Coe, Schele, and Carrasco! However, Beastie needs to add abracadabra...because we sure aren't going to get any full citations out of her. Do you know what a page number is Beastie? Are you worried that someone might actually be able to find what you are appealing to?

[juliann]

Both groups, Aztec and Mayan, were acting out important mythical, or sometimes historical/mythical, events from their own past, of their own religious history. 

My question is...do you know any of these languages to know what the heck you are even talking about? Or is this where you scream Coe, Schele, and Carrasco!

You are demonstrating the truth of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Good insult....but it would be more impressive if you know how to properly cite Coe, Schele, and Carrasco! so the rest of us would be privy to your extensive knowledge.

While I feel fairly certain Brant understands the difference between the Aztec practice of god-impersonating and the Mayan practices of dressing their kings in sacred garb, others may not, so I will try to explain, and hopefully it will become apparent why it is misleading to lump the two under the same practice.

[beastie]

Juliann,

If you are going to discount all the references I've given because I didn't cite each page number, when I have time I will go back and insert them. As if you have the books. I cited the titles within the post. As to publisher - you have got to be kidding. How many nits can you pick?

Brant,

You answered:

How did you miss my answer on this? I cited the evidence of epi-Olmec and the rather well accepted idea that writing would developed on non-permanent media before it was codified in permanent media. I also noted that there are fragments of several scripts where there isn't sufficient breadth of symbols to hazard a translation. In other words, I answered this. Now I have answered it again.

Now look again at my question:

So my question to Brant is thus: are you saying that there is any sort of evidence that Mesoamericans had this sort of advanced form of writing and literacy for many centuries before they began writing on monuments and ceramics?

Note: It should be clear by this point that by "this sort of advanced form of writing and literacy" I am referring to the type of advanced writing in the BoM, and the advanced literacy in which Benjamin could pass out written text with the expectation that normal people could use it.

Now, having looked again at my question, are you still saying that your reference to Olmec writing answers that question?

Yes. Stone age refers to the tool kit they use, not what they might have known. If they used any form of metallurgy for decorative purposes and never for tools, they would be considered stone age.

Please provide an example and qualify what you mean by "any form of metallurgy". I am assuming this term connotes a technology higher than "hammering natural outcrops of metal into shapes", which is normally what has happened when the metal is used for decorative purposes (HA you left out religious!!!) and never for tools.

Let's see. The fundamental difference is that one person was dressed up as a god and represented the god and the other was dressed up as a god and represented a god? The fundamental difference is that the god effected a renewal through his own sacrifice and the other got effected a renewal through his own sacrifice.

Yes - I see the fundamental difference. Of course one was a captive and one was a king -but that refers to the human, not the act of impersonation.

That's very impressive. In a conversation about false Christs you completely ignore the most glaring difference, which I carefully noted. Here's what you should say: The fundamental difference is that one person was dressed up as a god and represented the god, was called a god-impersonator, and after a year was killed in a sacrificial ritual and the other dressed up as a God and engaged in ritualistic blood letting, but was never killed in a sacrificial ritual.

You've done this many times by now, but it still impresses me each time you manage to quote me and then completely ignore what I said.

Your date for the institution is probably a bit late. I understand that it may have been in one of your sources, but that date is being pushed earlier. As you are well aware, I am the one telling you that these rites existed prior to the arrival of the Teotihuacanos. So - even though I am more cautious on the date, I have no problem with the rest of the sentence. It has been, as a matter of fact, the point I was making. Amazing that you now agree with me.

I think I've figured out what part of our problem is. I assume, too often that your answers to me actually have some real connection to the topic being discussed.

The topic being discussed within the context of this particular quote is what was so different about the pacifist lamanites. You suggest that was what so different about their case is that they condoned the culture that required human sacrifices. So I proceed to argue that this wasn't unique to this group, in fact, even the people who converted initially via Nephi participated in a culture that condoned human sacrifice. So then you proceed to ask about the institution of kingship. My mistake was assuming asking about the institution of kingship had something to do with the prior conversation. Apparently it did not. If you accept that king rites had been around before Cerros, and that human sacrifice also had been around before Cerros, then let's return to square one. What was so different about the experience of the pacifist lamanites????? Answer: nothing.

Here is where you contradict youself and blame it on me. If the Olmecs have practices of human sacrifice then you known that they preceded the 50 B.C. date you are complaining about. You just presented information contrary to your own position. That you do not see it further confirms that you are misreading or misunderstanding youor data.

Brant. I'm not the one who stated that the pacifist lamanites had some sort of different experience - ie, participating in a culture that condoned human sacrifice - as if every other mesoamerican had not. I'm the one who argued that the element of human sacrifice was around long before the time period of the anti lehi nephites.

If I weren't so vain, I'd be pulling out my hair by the handfuls at this point.

Right. Please tell me how this is related to the pre-existing sacrifices?

You have confirmed what I've suspected for a while. At best, you skim my posts, you don't really read them. and I'm criticized for repeating myself.

I said:

However, prior to the Tikal event, opposing cities did not actually take over the polity of the vanquished city, which is exactly what occurred in this story.

You earlier seemed to vaguely recognize this problem and tried to dismiss it by saying that there is evidence that the new ruler was really not from Tikal. I've also read that interesting bit before. However, that does not change the fact that the victor - Tikal - installed a new ruler from their "side", does it? This is what was new, as Schele makes clear.

You see what I mean? I have never said that the ritual was new. I said that the method of warfare was new. I have also said that there were additions and expansions of the sacrifices - but I count on the continuation of the Maya rites to explain Ammonihah.

Arg. What was new about the method of warfare was that the victor took over the polity of the city, (as well as the escalation in killings). If all the other mesoamericans had participated in a culture that condoned human sacrifice, then this does nothing to explain the pacifist Lamanites. For what feels like the tenth time.

Misreading and misunderstanding. Toss in a little misrepresentation. How can I possibly argue with this?

My feelings exactly. How can I argue with someone who doesn't even keep track of his own arguments? Were the pacifist lamanites different for some reason or not? If not, why do you pretend that they are? You build this argument on how the pacifist Lamanites can be understood through the context of Mayan history. Then you proceed to explain human sacrifice. If you realize that every other mayan, including Nephite's converts, also had that same experience, then why the heck did you use that as a reason for how the pacifist Lamanites were different???? Nothing you just offered to explain the pacifist Lamanites really explains them, because nothing was unique about their experience.

[beastie]

This is your point? Please reread the evidence of rival clans. The deposition of kings by rivals is well known. The situation in Anti-Nephi-Lehi is an internal revolt, not an external war. These are people who are already part of the hegemony who are rebelling against the change in leadership. It is not the same situation. What was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules from an outside polity. Replacing them internally was a very different issue. One is the nature of politics and the other the type of warfare. Once again you have over-generalized from your reading and applied the right information to the wrong occasion.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the various cities cited in Alma actually were all under the control of one polity?

[Samurai Jack]

Things are so complicated now...

Can't we just go back to the good old days when a Lamanite was a Cheyenne, Navajo, Crow, Sioux, Apache, etc.?

Who cares about cultural and linguistic differences? Who cares about archaeology?

If we can believe in the freakin' Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden, I don't think we should have a problem with the Lamanites being the "Principle Ancestors" of ALL NATIVE AMERICANS.

[beastie]

This is your point? Please reread the evidence of rival clans. The deposition of kings by rivals is well known. The situation in Anti-Nephi-Lehi is an internal revolt, not an external war. These are people who are already part of the hegemony who are rebelling against the change in leadership. It is not the same situation. What was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules from an outside polity. Replacing them internally was a very different issue. One is the nature of politics and the other the type of warfare. Once again you have over-generalized from your reading and applied the right information to the wrong occasion.

My goodness. Why did you argue with me so long on a ZLMB thread, when I pointed out the very sentence highlighted in your response?

Oh, now I remember. You argued with me because admitting that "what was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules from an outside polity" presents serious problems for the book of Helaman. How soon you forgot, and slipped up and admitted the very thing I never could get you to admit on that thread!

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...tart=21&stop=40

Seven of Niine

Resistance is Futile

Posts: 4246

(11/1/04 7:17 pm)

Reply | Edit  Re: Mayan Timetable, BoM destruction

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

Brant,

A Forest of Kings talks about the new Star Wars you mention, but the reason it is new is because it is the introduction of a conquest approach to war. You benefit from the date of the Tikal victory, but your argument loses force when taken into context- not only the context of the BoM, but of Mayan history. From p 345:

Quote:

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

Warfare was not new to the Maya. Raiding for captives from one kingdom to another had been going on for centuries, for allusions to decapitation are present in even the earliest architectural decorations celebrating kingship. The hunt for sacrificial gifts to give to the gods and the testing of personal prowess in battle was part of the accepted social order, and captive sacrifice was something expected of nobles and kings in the performance of their ritual duties. Just as the gods were sustained by the bloodletting ceremonies of kings, so they were nourished as well by the blood of noble captives. Sacrificial victims like these had been buried as offerings in building terminations and dedications from late Preclassic times on, and possibly even earlier. Furthermore, the portrayal of living captives is prominent not only at Uaxactun and Tikal, but also at Rio Azul, Xultun, and other Early Classic sites.

The war waged by Great-Jaguar-Paw of Tikal against Uzxactun, however, was not the traditional hand-to-hand combat of proud nobles striving for personal glory and for captives to give to the gods. This was war on an entirely different scale, played by rules never before herad of and for stakes far higher than the reputations or lives of individuals. In this new warfare of death and conquest, the winner would gain the kingdom of the loser. Tikal won the prize on january 16, AD 378.

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

This is problematic for the text of the BoM, which clearly includes conquest wars long before the that period. Look, for example, at Helaman 1.

Quote:

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

18 And it came to pass that because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government, that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of their lands to attack that great city Zarahemla.

19 But it came to pass that Coriantumr did march forth at the head of his numerous host, and came upon the inhabitants of the city, and their march was with such exceedingly great speed that there was no time for the Nephites to gather together their armies.

20 Therefore Coriantumr did cut down the watch by the entrance of the city, and did march forth with his whole army into the city, and they did slay every one who did oppose them, insomuch that they did take possession of the whole city.

21 And it came to pass that Pacumeni, who was the chief judge, did flee before Coriantumr, even to the walls of the city. And it came to pass that Coriantumr did smite him against the wall, insomuch that he died. And thus ended the days of Pacumeni.

22 And now when Coriantumr saw that he was in possession of the city of Zarahemla, and saw that the Nephites had fled before them, and were slain, and were taken, and were cast into prison, and that he had obtained the possession of the strongest hold in all the land, his heart took courage insomuch that he was about to go forth against all the land.

23 And now he did not tarry in the land of Zarahemla, but he did march forth with a large army, even towards the city of Bountiful, for it was his determination to go forth and cut his way through with the sword, that he might obtain the north parts of the land.

24 And, supposing that their greatest strength was in the center of the land, therefore he did march forth, giving them no time to assemble themselves together save it were in small bodies; and in this manner they did fall upon them and cut them down to the earth.

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

Brant's response:

Brant Gardner

Digger

Posts: 2150

(11/1/04 9:13 pm)

Reply  Re: Mayan Timetable, BoM destruction

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

The Maya model not only established "food" for the gods, but also tributary relationships. The difference was the destructive nature of the warfare under Teotihuacan. That was the shift. As you continue to read you will notice that neither Schele nor Freidel assume that there was no conquest and domination among the Maya. The fortifications from the middle preclassic clearly tell us that there were wars of conquest - else there would be no need for the defensive battlments.

Teotihuacan changed more than the relationships established.

Now, as for the wars in Helaman I would never suggest that no one could possibly have thought of such a war until Teotihuacan. They are associated with the increase in that type of warfare and an increase in destructiveness. There is nothing that suggests that what happens in Helaman did not fit into Maya warfare. Remember the fortified cities which were being fortified for rather obvious reasons. See the attack on the city of Lehi for a Book of Mormon example of how those battlements worked - and at about the same time as they are seen archaeologically.

[juliann]

If you are going to discount all the references I've given because I didn't cite each page number, when I have time I will go back and insert them.

[juliann]

Here's what you should say:  The fundamental difference is that one person was dressed up as a god and represented the god, was called a god-impersonator, and after a year was killed in a sacrificial ritual and the other dressed up as a God and engaged in ritualistic blood letting, but was never killed in a sacrificial ritual. 

You have been making a very huge deal that the term "impersonator" does not mean that the king became the God. Yet Schele says:

"The king *personified the World Tree in his flesh" Linda Schele and Peter Mathews, The Code of Kings:The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs (New York: Scribner, 1998), 418.

*Personified: to be the embodiment or personification of : INCARNATE

I see that you are still refusing to answer any of Brant's demands for evidence while continuing that he respond to your demands. Not impressive.

[beastie]

Juliann,

Just for you I'm going back to insert the page numbers of the references cited. I already did the last two pages. If there is one citation in particular that interests you, ask. No cribbing, but I'm not surprised that your mind would go that route. Who do you think I'm cribbing from, btw? If this has been discussed in enough detail somewhere for me to 'crib', I'd love to see the reference. And wrong Schele book, of course, you would know that if you had noticed the titles that I did include in my original posts.

Back to other topics:

I'm still searching for the much beloved Sorenson footnotes. No luck there, but did find a reference to metallurgy in general on famsi.

http://www.famsi.org/research/pohl/chronology.html

During the PostClassic period, regional governments became highly segmented and commercially oriented. Emphasis was placed on the development of

[beastie]

Good Schele reference, Juliann. I'll give you that point. Now can you refute my other, ignored, argument that the primary difference between the Aztec impersonators and the Mayan leaders is that the Aztecs were actually being sacrificed, while the Mayan leaders were obviously not? And why is this an insignificant detail in discussing a false Christ?

I see that you are still refusing to answer any of Brant's demands for evidence while continuing that he respond to your demands. Not impressive.

And I see that your habit of selective reading has not changed.

[juliann]

Beastie claims: Even odder, Juliann and CI appeared again to chastise me for referencing Coe’s statements about the shared Mesoamerican worldview, across language differences, because I don’t actually speak those languages myself.

If only you had "referenced" statements. <ahem> The problem I am having is that your own authority doesn't even back you up. It just gets odder, doesn't it?

Schele does not speak of a unified "shared Mesoamerican worldview"....a perfect example of what Brant has identified in your methodology...a relentness need to over-generalize. The "core" factor is seen in their sacred centers and war, according to Schele. (see pg 38 from above referenced source) Anyone who is remotely familiar with the study of ancient texts would see the necessity in dealing with the myth of origin and the changes and varieties throughout time. But why bother with that messy stuff when you can offer Coe, Schele, and Carrasco! instead?