rick7475 Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 I'm not so sure that's true. There are lots of rock art depicting horses, but since the scientific consensus is that they didn't exist, they are all assumed to post date Columbus. I don't know if they've all been tested for patina, dating, etc, but I would be interested in such findings. Also, does anyone have any info on what this is, the figure on the left? it's one of the wheeled toys found in Mesoamerica. Sure looks like something with a bridle in its mouth to me, but I'm not up on these discoveries. The one on the left also looks like it may have a saddle and a mane, or even a yoke of some sort. I was reading in Sorensen again, and he notes that Mesoamerican rode deer and even incorporated saddles. However, the figurine on the left does not resemble a deer. Do you have a link for the picture?
rick7475 Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 I'm not so sure that's true. There are lots of rock art depicting horses, but since the scientific consensus is that they didn't exist, they are all assumed to post date Columbus. I don't know if they've all been tested for patina, dating, etc, but I would be interested in such findings. Also, does anyone have any info on what this is, the figure on the left? it's one of the wheeled toys found in Mesoamerica. Sure looks like something with a bridle in its mouth to me, but I'm not up on these discoveries. Sorry, I noticed another thing, check out the spokes on the wheels on the left! When I visited Nauvoo this summer the Black Smith showed us how complex it was to make a wheel. In fact, it is an entire trade: wheel wright. Both wheels have different spokes, and the rear wheel looks very complex. If they never used real wheels for carts or chariots, why would they model one with complex spokes and a hub? Toys don't need this. Hubs are also fairly complex because they have to house the spokes. This is a great example of proof that the Mesoamerican people used chariots.
Palerider Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Sorry, I noticed another thing, check out the spokes on the wheels on the left! When I visited Nauvoo this summer the Black Smith showed us how complex it was to make a wheel. In fact, it is an entire trade: wheel wright. Both wheels have different spokes, and the rear wheel looks very complex. If they never used real wheels for carts or chariots, why would they model one with complex spokes and a hub? Toys don't need this. Hubs are also fairly complex because they have to house the spokes. This is a great example of proof that the Mesoamerican people used chariots. And that their cows and deer rode on them! Fewer drive bys and more engagement with the topic would be appreciated.
cdowis Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Sorry, I noticed another thing, check out the spokes on the wheels on the left! When I visited Nauvoo this summer the Black Smith showed us how complex it was to make a wheel. In fact, it is an entire trade: wheel wright. Both wheels have different spokes, and the rear wheel looks very complex. If they never used real wheels for carts or chariots, why would they model one with complex spokes and a hub? Toys don't need this. Hubs are also fairly complex because they have to house the spokes. This is a great example of proof that the Mesoamerican people used chariots. Before we can conclude that it proves anything, it would be interesting to reconstruct this in a full size model, and see how closely it represents a real working wheel and hub, especially if it could carry a heavy load.
omni Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Waaaaaaayyyyyyy less than 20%. I would think it's closer to .2% if that! Jungles, deserts, lakes, buildings--all sitting on top of mysteries yet to be discovered! This is a sincere question, are you aware of any large animals that were used by humans and have not shown up in Mesoamerican art and architecture? In your professional opinion as an archeologist, how likely would it be to find numerous images of large animals not used by humans such as the jaguar, and no images of commonly used animals such as horses, swine, domesticated goats and cattle?
rick7475 Posted December 4, 2013 Author Posted December 4, 2013 This is a sincere question, are you aware of any large animals that were used by humans and have not shown up in Mesoamerican art and architecture? In your professional opinion as an archeologist, how likely would it be to find numerous images of large animals not used by humans such as the jaguar, and no images of commonly used animals such as horses, swine, domesticated goats and cattle? There are no images of buffalo that I am aware of, yet the Mesoamerican people were aware of them, even kept them in a zoo in Teotihuacan before the Spanish arrived (which they called a cow). Swine could be peccarries, I haven't seen images or statues of them. Brocket deer have been called goats by the Spanish. Cattle can be anything from herds of llamas, alpacas, bison, deer, tapirs, and so on. The wheeled creature above on the left has attributes that can be identified with a horse. It could also be a dog, but without the object in hand it is hard to see. Many other wheeled figures could not be identified as to which animal they represent, with some archaeologists speculating they were crosses between wolves and bears. Since they had a bias against horses, it was not considered. I am trying to look these up to see what they look like, but haven't been successful thus far.
omni Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) There are no images of buffalo that I am aware of, yet the Mesoamerican people were aware of them, even kept them in a zoo in Teotihuacan before the Spanish arrived (which they called a cow). Buffalo were not common to the area and so you would not expect to find their images. However further north where they were common you would expect, and in fact do find many examples of their image in Native American art. Swine could be peccarries, I haven't seen images or statues of them. These aren't that similar and is there any evidence they were ever domesticated? Brocket deer have been called goats by the Spanish. Which makes you wonder how we got Cureloms and Cumoms if they were just naming the animals in New World after animals in the Old World. Cattle can be anything from herds of llamas, alpacas, bison, deer, tapirs, and so on. For some reason I just can't wrap my mind around this... Edited December 5, 2013 by omni
ERayR Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 (edited) BFor some reason I just can't wrap my mind around this... Edited December 4, 2013 by ERayR
Anijen Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 These aren't that similar and is there any evidence they were ever domesticated?Peccaries do strongly resemble pigs. Oh and there are pictures on Mesoamerican pottery showing a pig/peccary being rode. Being rode = domestication
rick7475 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Buffalo were not common to the area and so you would not expect to find their images. However further north where they were common you would expect, and in fact do find many examples of their image in Native American art. These aren't that similar and is there any evidence they were ever domesticated? Which makes you wonder how we got Cureloms and Cumoms if they were just naming the animals in new world after animals in the old world. tapir.jpeg For some reason I just can't wrap my mind around this... I have stated that I believe horses were not that common either, the Book of Mormon text rarely mentions them. Here are some pecarries, http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/collared-peccary-photo-1373.html http://a-z-animals.com/animals/collared-peccary/pictures/3622/ and boars (the dictionary says they are also swines): http://www.pennmac.com/blog/2011/12/celebrating-wild-boar-festival/ http://www.pbase.com/image/66145935 They look pretty alike to me. They Book of Mormon never says they are domesticated. It says they were raised. There is a big difference. While growing up my friends raised raccoons. They hung around but were never domesticated. Penned animals are not necessarily domesticated, and there were many pens discovered in Mesoamerica. Cureloms and Cumoms could be llamas, tapirs, or alpacas. And I can't wrap my head around one of my ancestors riding a tapir, especially since the Mesoamericans road deer. The Book of Mormon doesn't mention them riding horses, either. Most horse remains found in Yucatan caves were there because they were probably being eaten, not ridden. My daughter is watching "The Emperor's New Groove", even Disney animators thought it plausible that llama's could pull carts. Edited December 5, 2013 by rick7475
katherine the great Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 Peccaries do strongly resemble pigs. Oh and there are pictures on Mesoamerican pottery showing a pig/peccary being rode. Being rode = domesticationDDoes this imply that horses really fly?
omni Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) I have stated that I believe horses were not that common either, the Book of Mormon text rarely mentions them. Here are some pecarries, I don't know if I would consider 14 times as "rarely", especially since the book is religious in nature and shouldn't be expected to dedicate a lot of ink (or metal etchings) in local flora and fauna. http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/collared-peccary-photo-1373.html http://a-z-animals.com/animals/collared-peccary/pictures/3622/ and boars (the dictionary says they are also swines): http://www.pennmac.com/blog/2011/12/celebrating-wild-boar-festival/ http://www.pbase.com/image/66145935 They look pretty alike to me. They Book of Mormon never says they are domesticated. It says they were raised. There is a big difference. While growing up my friends raised raccoons. They hung around but were never domesticated. Penned animals are not necessarily domesticated, and there were many pens discovered in Mesoamerica. I guess about as similar as llamas and camels, which makes me wonder why we never read of camels in the New World. Cureloms and Cumoms could be llamas, tapirs, or alpacas. Then why didn't Joseph translate them as such? I would assume those words existed in English at the time of the BoM's translation. Edited December 5, 2013 by omni
rick7475 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 In fact horse is mentioned in the Mormon lands setting 9 times, 4 of which are in the same context with Ammon and King Lamoni, 3 in a 10 year span, and 2 others, for a total of 4 instances. Jaradites 2000 BC Ether 9:19 Alma 18 - 20 shows them only with King Lamoni in Lamanite lands, no where else in all Alma in the Nephite lands despite the mention of other kings and nobles.90 BC Alma 18:9Alma 18:10Alma 18:12Alma 20:6 10 year period In Zarahemla and Bountiful during battles and strife16 - 26 AD3 Nephi 3:223 Nephi 4:43 Nephi 6:1 420 BCEnos 1:21 4 difference instances, 4 different time periods, spanning 2500 years. That seems rare to me, fitting in perfectly with isolated pockets of horses. As for llamas, tapirs, and alpacas, I don't know if he knew what they were in Upstate New York in the 1820's, or if the name made it to the settlers there. 1
Sevenbak Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 DDoes this imply that horses really fly?When Peccaries fly!
Sevenbak Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) In fact horse is mentioned in the Mormon lands setting 9 times, 4 of which are in the same context with Ammon and King Lamoni, 3 in a 10 year span, and 2 others, for a total of 4 instances. Jaradites 2000 BC Ether 9:19 Alma 18 - 20 shows them only with King Lamoni in Lamanite lands, no where else in all Alma in the Nephite lands despite the mention of other kings and nobles.90 BC Alma 18:9Alma 18:10Alma 18:12Alma 20:6 10 year period In Zarahemla and Bountiful during battles and strife16 - 26 AD3 Nephi 3:223 Nephi 4:43 Nephi 6:1 420 BCEnos 1:21 4 difference instances, 4 different time periods, spanning 2500 years. That seems rare to me, fitting in perfectly with isolated pockets of horses. As for llamas, tapirs, and alpacas, I don't know if he knew what they were in Upstate New York in the 1820's, or if the name made it to the settlers there. Did you know that horses are only mentioned a single time in the New Testament, outside of Revelations. Does that mean they were extremely isolated and rare, except for prophecies about the future? I don't think anyone here would take that stance. They aren't mentioned, because they were common. The BoM similarly, makes rather matter of fact statements about horses, IMO. Edited December 5, 2013 by Sevenbak
Robert F. Smith Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................... The Book of Mormon doesn't mention them riding horses, either. Most horse remains found in Yucatan caves were there because they were probably being eaten, not ridden. -------------------------------------------------------- Horsemeat is very popular among humans in Europe. It is only included in dogfood in the USA.
Rivers Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 Which makes you wonder how we got Cureloms and Cumoms if they were just naming the animals in New World after animals in the Old World.According to Brandt Gardner, Cureloms and Cumoms have unique names because they come from the Jaredite history. 2
rick7475 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 Did you know that horses are only mentioned a single time in the New Testament, outside of Revelations. Does that mean they were extremely isolated and rare, except for prophecies about the future? I don't think anyone here would take that stance. They aren't mentioned, because they were common. The BoM similarly, makes rather matter of fact statements about horses, IMO. The New Testament spanned 80 years and consisted largely of letters of doctrine. Where as the Old Testament covers a similiar time span as the Book of Mormon (Abraham living approximately 2000 BC) and mentions the horse 129 times. I haven't checked all the scriptures for instances as I did the Book of Mormon, but that is at least 10 - 12 times more. I'd say that makes horses in Book of Mormon lands less common.
cdowis Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Then why didn't Joseph translate them as such? I would assume those words existed in English at the time of the BoM's translation. Your assumption is incorrect. Llama and alpaca are not found in the 1828 Webster's. Edited December 5, 2013 by cdowis
rick7475 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 Now, before we discuss the number of times horse appears in the Book of Mormon, New Testament, or Old Testament, arguing number of pages, book size, number of words, and ratio of 'horse' to word count, etc, there are a number of other factors you will have to consider. The Book of Mormon is largely a chronology.The Old Testament is many things, a chronology, a health code, Palms and Proverbs, and so onThe New Testament is part chronology (Acts), biography, doctrinal and missionary tracts/letters etc They are primarily texts on interaction with God, not biology or science. The evidence for horses in Mesoamerica is scant. However, as mentioned by someone in the field, the archaeological record has barely been touched, unlike the Old World. But as mentioned in the very beginning, 3 horse bone specimans have been dated by the Carbon-14 method, the most accepted form of dating, and currently most reliable, yielding dates that show horses existed before the Spaniards arrived and well after the accepted date of extinction. Other bones have been found and dated by association with other artifacts dated in the same time frame. And yet others that were not dated were found and not fossilized, so their age may be more recent than 10,000 years.
rick7475 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Posted December 5, 2013 Llamas and alpacas do not look like camels. When I see a llama, camel is not the first thing that comes to mind. I grew up near a park with llamas, no one ever through of them as related to camels. In fact, when I was reading Sorensen, this is the first time I found out they were related to camels.
Tiki Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 According to Brandt Gardner, Cureloms and Cumoms have unique names because they come from the Jaredite history. Brandt Gardner is wrong: What of the Jaredite word Deseret? We know what that is as the text states, i.e., Moroni gave us the interpretation: Honey Bee.So why wouldn't Nephi/Mormon be accurate when writing "Horse", i.e., why should we believe "horse" means "tapir," when he knew what deseret was? It's likely Moroni didn't give the translation for Cureloms and Cumoms because, knowing and seeing our day (Mormon 8:35) he knew Cureloms and Cumoms would be extinct in our day and not commonly known.He did write "elephants" and it was much criticized until the discovery of mammoths and mastodons in the Americas.
Tiki Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Regarding the claim Nephites never rode horses. How about their ancestors?You think maybe Lehi's family and the Nephite Nation which read the Plates of Brass knew about riding horses? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=riders&sort=chronology
Sevenbak Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 The New Testament spanned 80 years and consisted largely of letters of doctrine. Where as the Old Testament covers a similiar time span as the Book of Mormon (Abraham living approximately 2000 BC) and mentions the horse 129 times. I haven't checked all the scriptures for instances as I did the Book of Mormon, but that is at least 10 - 12 times more. I'd say that makes horses in Book of Mormon lands less common. Exactly. The BoM is also doctrine, and lacks historical context. The text says that it's not for history. If, as you mention, take 80 years per horse reference, the timeline would be pretty close the same as the NT. Apples and Oranges to the OT. There is much historical context, to the point of extremity, there.
cdowis Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 It's likely Moroni didn't give the translation for Cureloms and Cumoms because, knowing and seeing our day (Mormon 8:35) he knew Cureloms and Cumoms would be extinct in our day and not commonly known. Another suggestion is that Moroni was unfamiliar with these animals (already extinct in his day) and simply used the Jaredite names.
Recommended Posts