The Narrow Neck Debate Continues...

[Anijen]

I wasnt aware that modern archaeologists went over these same sites in western New York that Squier mentions and dated them Could you provide a link?

The reprint of Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley with a wonderful editorial and introduction  by Dr. David J. Meltzer speaks of Squier's agenda and clarifies beliefs that many held at this time in US history. Meltzer also tells how Squier and Davis had many things just plain wrong. Another source is Dr. William Iseminger he writes of the discoveries of Cahokia and how dating was performed on the skeletons found at that site.

 

The Smithsonian's very first published book is often quoted by those who believe in a Hill Cumorah setting for the final battle. Frankly I do not think many have read his book, but have relied on past members who have cherry picked only the quotes that support their ideas and disregard everything else. They also disregard modern day anthropologist who with better technology etc can analyze and get a better idea of the history of when and who were the ancient Americans. 

[Rob Osborn]

I've been reading it.  It does not support your view--at all.  Subsequent archaeological digs and study only serve to confirm that these sites date wildly to the wrong time periods to be of use as evidence for the final battles around New York's hill.

Well...a CFR is in order for you to provide evidence that the earthen fortifications in New York as mentioned by Squier are being dated.

You need to provide the locations and/or names of the sites first so he can find them for you.

He claimed I was wrong, I await his CFR.

No problem.  Here is the actual website for Fort Ancient State Memorial:

 

http://www.fortancient.org/archaeology

 

 

Here is something you can read on the site:

 

And, yet another page (Ongoing Research):

 

And, you can find this in the Ohio Prehistory section:

 

Additional summaries of the information they have been learning about the site are found on the site under the archaeology section.  Happy reading. 

This says nothing of the earthen forts of western New York.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn, CFRs don't work like that. You can't just say, "read the book" then refuse to answer again until your CFR is answered. Clean up the act or leave the thread.

 

~Chronos

I gave a link to the book and said to read the first 75 pages. It woyld take like 10 hrs and 2 pages of this tjread for me to cut and paste from almost everyone of tjose 75 pages. Hope that helps.

[Rob Osborn]

The reprint of Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley with a wonderful editorial and introduction  by Dr. David J. Meltzer speaks of Squier's agenda and clarifies beliefs that many held at this time in US history. Meltzer also tells how Squier and Davis had many things just plain wrong. Another source is Dr. William Iseminger he writes of the discoveries of Cahokia and how dating was performed on the skeletons found at that site.

 

The Smithsonian's very first published book is often quoted by those who believe in a Hill Cumorah setting for the final battle. Frankly I do not think many have read his book, but have relied on past members who have cherry picked only the quotes that support their ideas and disregard everything else. They also disregard modern day anthropologist who with better technology etc can analyze and get a better idea of the history of when and who were the ancient Americans.

I think it can and is well established from the many historical accounts listed in this thread that there were earthen fortifications foynd in western New York by the early settlers of the land. That it was also quite extensive is also not in question. Thete were both newer earthen works of modern date and works of an ancient and unknown date. These ancient works were and still are of great myatery as to who they were and their origin. Trying to prove a certain BoM date on them is pretty much impossible because of the long occupation of the land. What are we really arguing over then? It is a known fact that much of those earthen forts have been destroyed by modern settlements. The case for evidence of a great battle is futile because everyone is already set in their ways. No amountvof evidence will suffice. Lets just move on.

r

[Questing Beast]

...The Hopewell prospered for perhaps six centuries, but around A.D. 500, the culture “collapsed.” ...

Above is a quibble that c. 500 AD is too late to be Nephite destruction period. But I think "we" are reading too much distinction into this. A single culture had divided into warring factions. For two hundred years more or less, the "Nephites" were one people. Then c. 180 "there began to be Lamanites" in the land. This was still a single culture. After one faction ("Nephite") was killed off and absorbed, the entire remaining faction dissolved into epidemic warfare, as Moroni said. It "collapsed". That there would be any trace remaining of any "forts" from the period is remarkable, given the amount of time since, and the people who have occupied the same area for succeeding centuries. I'm not saying that "Hopewell" is "Lamanite", only that the dating and location supports Rob's theory well enough, given the lack of any hard data. And then there is the warming period either side of "c. 385" which makes "harsh winters" non existent in upper state NY....

[cursor]

I,m talking about Moroni, not Mormon.

 

Wait ... then who is Normon? [ post #305 ]   

[Anijen]

I think it can and is well established from the many historical accounts listed in this thread that there were earthen fortifications foynd in western New Yorkr

I wouldn't say many, but yes there have been some found. Can you name one of them, where it is at, and what its history is? 

 

 

That it was also quite extensive is also not in question.

 

Extensive, hmmm I do not think it was as much as you would like however, I agree it is not in question.

 

Thete were both newer earthen works of modern date and works of an ancient and unknown date.

 

Modern? By what time period do you mean? Unknown, yes in Squiers time not unknown now.

 

 

These ancient works were and still are of great myatery

 

Not so much now days, yes back in Squier's day.

 

 

as to who they were and their origin.

 

Their are most likely descendants from those who crossed the Baring land bridge.

 

 

 

Trying to prove a certain BoM date on them is pretty much impossible

 

Not anymore.

 

 

because of the long occupation of the land.

 

"the long occupation of the land"  doesn't matter. It does not change how carbon dating is done nor its results, it does not change the flora fauna dating, the quartz, obsidian source sites, it does not change the patterns in the flint napping or any of their characteristics, It does not change the migration habits of these people, It will not change if they were hunter gatherers or an agri dependent people. It might break crack some remnants but plowing and harvesting over these objects does not make their time different from when they were. Yes they still can be dated

 

 

What are we really arguing over then?

 

We are arguing over the plausibility of a final battle site at the hill Cumorah in upstate New York.

 

 

It is a known fact that much of those earthen forts have been destroyed by modern settlements.

 

Yes, why bring this up? We have no disagreement there. Too much of a connection is given to these fortifications as being those of the Nephites are Lamanites when they are not. Too much excuse of "well they were plowed under" as an justification that we can no longer study them. Yes it is true we can no longer study the mound (earthwork), but we can still date any skeletal remains (if they haven't been repatriated), we can analyze pot shards, core samples, carbon dating, projectile points and their sources, etc.

 

 

The case for evidence of a great battle is futile because everyone is already set in their ways.

 

Actually this "closeminded" person is not so set in my ways (not as close minded as you may think I am). I am not set in my ways I just want you to show me some evidence of such a battle, without the old horse beaten read Squiers and Davis' book. I have and it does not support as much as you would think it does.

 

 

No amountvof evidence will suffice.

 

Any amount of evidence would suffice, you just haven't found any. The remarks of a book written by amateur archaeologist written in 1848 hardly accounts as evidence.

 

 

ets just move on.

 

I am fine with that as well.

[Questing Beast]

Ancient climate can be determined with some accuracy via tree growth rings, ice cores in Arctic and Antarctic regions, etc.

You can find a better set of charts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record .  Take a look at the 3rd chart (covering the last 2000 years).  Click on it to enlarge it, and tell me whether there is likely to be light to no snowfall at the Battle of Cumorah in New York.  Looks to me that this would entail the same type of very cold weather in New York they had always had (in Amerind memory), and it would certainly have made it into the Book of Mormon.  Yet it isn't there . . .

I'm not sure what I am looking at. Red and yellow lines that overlap c. at the time of the Nephite destruction. Are we therefore talking about less that 4% of minus one degree Celsius? That's not harsh weather pattern temperature is it? If the BoM is literal history and no snow gets mentioned, there could easily be a regional warming period coinciding with the final battles spoken of....

[thesometimesaint]

A regional warming covering about three thousand years, with no mention of snow?

[Rob Osborn]

"Any amount of evidence would suffice, you just haven't found any. The remarks of a book written by amateur archaeologist written in 1848 hardly accounts as evidence."

This is why one cant debate. One sided evidence, its no wonder so many disregard the New York Cumorah location. No kind of evidence is good enough. Good thing we are moving on...

[Rob Osborn]

In the KJV, we typically find two Hebrew words translated "hill," giba, and har.  The latter is also frequently translated "mount."  You might want to investigate how a "mount" can be a "hill," and vice-versa.  Your opinions might very well be colored by expectations.  No?

Its my opinion from a study of the text that the hill Cumorah elevation was not more than a few hundred feet. I just cant see 25 survivors,of which at least Mormon is wounded, climbing a mountain to see their destroyed nation the very next day after battle.

[cursor]

"Any amount of evidence would suffice, you just haven't found any. The remarks of a book written by amateur archaeologist written in 1848 hardly accounts as evidence."

This is why one cant debate. One sided evidence, its no wonder so many disregard the New York Cumorah location. No kind of evidence is good enough. Good thing we are moving on...

 

When balanced against alternative interpretations, which are based on substantiated current evidence, and the words of real (and current) scholars ... it just might be time for you to adjust your perspectives regarding the final battleground of the Jaredites & Nephites. "Good thing that we are moving on."

[Rob Osborn]

When balanced against alternative interpretations, which are based on substantiated current evidence, and the words of real (and current) scholars ... it just might be time for you to adjust your perspectives regarding the final battleground of the Jaredites & Nephites. "Good thing that we are moving on."

Ok, so what does the evidence of a large ancient battle at Cerro El Vigia look like?

[Rob Osborn]

I am betting that there is less evidence for a major ancient battle at Cerro el Vigia than in New York. I thus put forth the challenge to any who can bring forth evidence to say otherwise.

[cursor]

Ok, so what does the evidence of a large ancient battle at Cerro El Vigia look like?

 

OK ... so what does the evidence of a large ancient battle at the weenie "cumorah" (capitalization lost, on intention) look like?

Edited September 16, 2013 by cursor

[Anijen]

Here's just one, from an Oklahoma Hopewell site, I believe.  Feathered serpents? Possibly, but at the very least, the style or art is very reminiscent of the Mayan culture.

 

This is a Piasa bird image (dragon) found on a cup in Oklahoma. There are some also found at Cahokia. Experts on the Spiro like Dr. Dennis Peterson do not believe it was influenced by the Mayans, but the similarities are there. The dating of the Spiro people (900 to about 1200 AD) do not date to the time of the Book of Mormon. To my knowledge the Spiro people lasted a little later than those at Cahokia, but I consider them contemporary of each other. The Spiro had a vast trading Network along the Mississippi and Arkansas  Rivers. There even was an obsidian scraper from Mexico found at this site, sadly for you it also dates hundreds (almost a thousand years to be more exact) of years after the time of the Book of Mormon. The Spiro people at their highest population point was about 25,000 (circa 1250 AD). The Burial mounds date between 800 to about 1450 AD., and none date back to the time of the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

OK ... so what does the evidence of a large ancient battle at the weenie "cumorah" (capitalization lost, on intention) look like?

I already made my case. You can laugh at it. Now its your turn.

[Bikeemikey]

Its quite too large in my opinion to be a hill, especially the hill Cumorah. 1500 feet is quite an elevation to climb.

The town I grew up around was surrounded by the port hills. The average height was 2800ft.

The idea that your opinion would have any bearing on the height of a geographical feature referred to by locals as a hill is a little silly. It could have been termed is jest and actually been a huge mountain.

We have no idea and using the modern usage of the term hill to speculate on height is pretty useless.

[MormonMason]

Everything I've read from the text tells me that the land northward was far less advanced, far more wicked, far less developed than the land southward, or their homeland.  However, there are indeed similarities in some artifacts.  

 

 

Here's just one, from an Oklahoma Hopewell site, I believe.  Feathered serpents? Possibly, but at the very least, the style or art is very reminiscent of the Mayan culture.

 

It looks more Aztecan than Maya.  And, so far as I was aware, Quetzalcoatl wasn't a rattlesnake.

[MormonMason]

I gave a link to the book and said to read the first 75 pages. It woyld take like 10 hrs and 2 pages of this tjread for me to cut and paste from almost everyone of tjose 75 pages. Hope that helps.

You don't need to cut and paste to answer a CFR.  All you need do is to provide specific page numbers to the passages that you claim support your statement.

[Bikeemikey]

Its my opinion from a study of the text that the hill Cumorah elevation was not more than a few hundred feet. I just cant see 25 survivors,of which at least Mormon is wounded, climbing a mountain to see their destroyed nation the very next day after battle.

I'm sorry but you need to remove "study of the text" from this and replace it with "fantastical imagination".

Your opinion relating to the hill height is based on nothing more than how you imagine things to be. We have zero capacity to determine the hill height based on the content of the text.

[cursor]

Awesome response, Bikeemikey. (I really had to watch my keystrokes when typing your name.)

Edited September 16, 2013 by cursor

[Bikeemikey]

Awesome response, Bikeemikey. (I really had to watch my keystrokes when typing you name.)

I'm intentionally sneaky when it comes to key strokes.

[cursor]

Sneaky can be good (tongue in cheek) ...
Truthful & honest, however, is always necessary.

[MormonMason]

I,m talking about Moroni, not Mormon.

 

On this point regarding Mormon and the records, we might be making assumptions about how many records Mormon actually had with him when he went to Cumorah.  One text in the Book of Mormon qualifies what kinds of records were hidden in the hill Shim for Mormon to obtain.  They were defined as "sacred records."  The phrase is repeated three times in such a way as to call into question how many records and of what types of records were preserved by Ammaron and gifted to Mormon.

 

4 Nephi 1:48:

48 And it came to pass that when three hundred and twenty years had passed away, Ammaron, being constrained by the Holy Ghost, did hide up the records which were sacred—yea, even all the sacred records which had been handed down from generation to generation, which were sacred—even until the three hundred and twentieth year from the coming of Christ.

 

 

Combine this with the following texts:

 

Mormon 2:17:

17 And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron.

Mormon 4:23:

23 And now I, Mormon, seeing that the Lamanites were about to overthrow the land, therefore I did go to the hill Shim, and did take up all the records which Ammaron had hid up unto the Lord.

I am sure that not all the records kept by the people of Nephi were considered sacred records, particularly mundane things like accounts payable, trading records, population censuses, taxation records, crop yields, and so forth.

 

"Sacred records" would have been religiously-based records like the plates of brass, large plates of Nephi, small plates of Nephi, and some few other records written by sacred writers who handed them down from generation to generation, in addition to Mormon's record, and a handful of sacred relics like the sword of Laban and Liahona, Interpreters, and so forth. The rest, while valuable, could have been considered expendable.

 

This was not the case with the sacred records.  The "sacred records" had to be preserved at all costs.  This distinction might make allowance for the possibility that Mormon might have had considerably less to carry to Cumorah than we might otherwise think.

 

We also know that not all the records would have been written on plates but rather written on scrolls and codices, likely made of bark paper and possibly treated animal skins.  We know that they knew what scrolls were, because scroll still was part of the vocabulary of Mormon and Moroni (see Mormon 5:23; 9:2), and that fact only could have been the case if scrolls still were in use.  That also would make things considerably lighter if other records besides the sacred records kept on plates were involved in being transported.

 

Just something that occurred to me while reading the Book of Mormon this morning.

Edited September 17, 2013 by MormonMason