New World Archaelogical Foundation

[Brant Gardner]

 

I'll ask again, do you believe your methods and assumptions have undergone rigorous scrutiny and, if so, by whom. or who. or what.

We'll know more about rigorous scrutiny after it has been published. I learned on my last book that regardless of what you see from people beforehand, what comes later can be surprising (though somethings not necessarily rigorous). 

 

However, I can tell you that I have read several books discussing historiography and attempted to make sure that I follow accepted procedures. In particular, William G. Dever provided an excellent listing of what he thinks should be done when archaeology is compared to a text (in his case, the Bible). It is found in his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? I found that list generally applicable to the problems in dealing with archaeology and the Book of Mormon. To a great extent, I use that methodology. We will see how well people think I did, but I can't believe that the fundamental methodology I have worked with wouldn't be reasonably sound, or at least almost as reasonably sound as Dever's.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Brant Gardner

[Calm]

I think you might need to edit that last sentence for typos….

[Brant Gardner]

I think you might need to edit that last sentence for typos….

So right. Thanks

[Robert F. Smith]

Brant Gardner said:

The short summary is that any geography has to fit the descriptions in the text for geographical features, hydrological features, and geological features (and for that we really have only the descriptions in 3 Nephi of a great destruction--but those descriptions are sufficient to understand what natural event they were describing).

....................................................  

However, we can agree that any archaeological evidence used needs to fit the spatial and temporal frames in the text to be useful-

..............................................................  

 

I find this sentence confusing.  Perhaps you assume that the Book of Mormon is historical.  Perhaps you assume that XY&Z text of the Book of Mormon equates to AB&C of known mesoamerican cultures, or places.  "Things have to fit" is neither an assumption nor a method.  This goes back to the question at the top. 

......................................................................   

No, we can't agree on that.  The art/science of archaeology is grounded in the fact that it has to fit - as some type of recordation - on a timeline. Even if that timeline is dynamic to findings and changing assumptions/conclusions. The time periods before and after an assumed era or timeframe are important for setting context pre- and post-event.

.........................................................................

Think of an archeological excavation in terms of a forensic criminal investigation.  The crime scene is secured and specialists arrive to gather data:  photography, measurements, fingerprints, organic & inorganic materials recovered, etc., and taken back to the lab for analysis (some items sent out for special analysis: autopsy, toxicology reports, DNA, etc.).

 

The timeline is of great significance, and detectives will be wondering where you were during the estimated time of death (alibi).  They will want to know why your fingerprints show up at the scene, or why your shoe print shows up in the dried blood at the scene.  Detectives will run everything through available electronic databases, and they will come up with theories based on their experience, then check those theories through direct confrontation with potential suspects and with the evidence gathered.  You can generate the questions and plot twists based on any good television detective yarn.

 

In the case of serial crimes, one has to compare multiple crime scene data.  Perhaps in multiple jurisdictions.  It can take years and involve numerous agencies, detectives, and forensic specialists.

 

All of these considerations apply equally well to archeology, except that the investigative scenes have been inactive for a long time.  All the more reason for the logical and careful application of the scientific method.  I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that.  It is not a special Mormon concoction.  Just everyday secular archeology.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

The colonists from Holland and Britain came in significant numbers during those two centuries, and they brought with them advanced technology for that day. The Nephites and Mulekites did nothing similar:  They had no continuous stream of settlers coming in, and they had no similar technology.  Plus, they were entering a relatively sparsely populated area, whereas the Nephites and Mulekites came into the most heavily populated area in the Americas -- with millions of inhabitants.

 

Wrong again.  The text says no such thing, although that is a frequent mistake made by careless readers.  Moreover, the Great Flood was likely local or regional, rather than the sort of thing which covered the mountains of planet Earth.  The Bible says no such thing.  In any case, there were lots of peoples inhabiting the Americas for thousands of years before the arrival of the Jaredites -- who established a great civilization centered on Veracruz state in southern Mexico.

 

Again the text says no such thing.  The interlocking geographical references of the Book of Mormon require that the Jaredite land northward be immediately adjacent to the land southward.  Only a careless reading of the text could lead one to believe otherwise.

 

The Mormon pioneers had advanced technology (wagons rifles, etc.) and the geography did not obstruct their path.  Then too, the areas they passed through were sparsely populated.  Again, you are comparing apples with oranges and creating a fantasy world.  It seems true to you, but you just haven't thought it through in realistic fashion.

 

As with the nation of Israel, they were also hemmed in by other powerful neighbors, and did not have vast open lands available to both north and south.  Both the Bible and Book of Mormon took place largely in quite small geographical areas, for similar reasons, and there is nothing odd or unaccountable in that fact.

Sounds like you have a pretty careless understanding of scripture text.

[ERayR]

Sounds like you have a pretty careless understanding of scripture text.

 

Sounds to me like your understanding need a bit of reevaluation..

[Rob Osborn]

Sounds to me like your understanding need a bit of reevaluation..

Hum...

How so?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Sounds to me like your understanding need a bit of reevaluation..

 

Rob is correct if you assume a Global Flood 4,000 years ago, but a Global Flood probably did not happen. 

Edited February 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like you have a pretty careless understanding of scripture text.

On the contrary, Rob, both of us should expect ourselves to take Scripture seriously enough to study it systematically and carefully, hopefully in languages such as Hebrew and Greek, with possible experience with direct dirt archeology -- gathering evidence in the field and then analyzing it in the lab.  Why do you have contempt for those who study such matters formally?

 

As with any serious endeavor, one cannot expect to simply read a text and immediately understand it without bothering to deal with scholarly analysis of it.  Joseph Smith thought that addressing Scripture with great seriousness involved learning from well-educated associates, such as Sidney Rigdon (who had studied Greek and Hebrew), or Alexander Neibaur (a Christian convert from Judaism before he became a Mormon) -- Hugh Nibley's great-grandfather.  Joseph even thought it important to learn Hebrew from a Jewish instructor there in Kirtland.  Why did Joseph use Hebrew in his King Follett Address in 1844?  Would you have told him then and there that he was being "careless."

 

I don't have contempt for the great learning and technical expertise of my cardiologist.  I want someone advising me and working on me who actually knows what he is doing.  If I don't like his diagnosis, should I tell him that he is being "careless"?

[bdouglas]

deleted 

Edited February 17, 2015 by bdouglas

[ERayR]

Rob is an interesting personality to me, since I have people in my extended family like him — or that seem to be like him. They reject science, "experts". These people study the scriptures assiduously — but that is all they study. They tend to have contempt for any kind of secular study or expertise (unless, of course, such expertise has a practical application, like medicine or engineering), even when this study or expertise dovetails with the scriptures. I once gave one such person (a member of my extended family) a copy of Hugh Nibley's "Zeal Without Knowledge", but I don't think he ever read it. I'd recommend this same article to Rob O., but in a thread several months ago on the the flood, he dismissed the work of Hugh Nibley as "flowery writing". So I don't think there would be any point.

 

I am sure there are people like you describe but there are also people that accept every scientific idea presented and categorize those who don't as illiterate fools.  Then there are those who study their  scriptures and have an active and open reading list of other material, both scientific and non-scientific, who find problems with some of the extrapolations made from some of the scientific data.  I have been accused by some posters of being close minded, illiterate and other adjectives for some of my questioning of the validity of some of these things.

[Rob Osborn]

On the contrary, Rob, both of us should expect ourselves to take Scripture seriously enough to study it systematically and carefully, hopefully in languages such as Hebrew and Greek, with possible experience with direct dirt archeology -- gathering evidence in the field and then analyzing it in the lab.  Why do you have contempt for those who study such matters formally?

 

As with any serious endeavor, one cannot expect to simply read a text and immediately understand it without bothering to deal with scholarly analysis of it.  Joseph Smith thought that addressing Scripture with great seriousness involved learning from well-educated associates, such as Sidney Rigdon (who had studied Greek and Hebrew), or Alexander Neibaur (a Christian convert from Judaism before he became a Mormon) -- Hugh Nibley's great-grandfather.  Joseph even thought it important to learn Hebrew from a Jewish instructor there in Kirtland.  Why did Joseph use Hebrew in his King Follett Address in 1844?  Would you have told him then and there that he was being "careless."

 

I don't have contempt for the great learning and technical expertise of my cardiologist.  I want someone advising me and working on me who actually knows what he is doing.  If I don't like his diagnosis, should I tell him that he is being "careless"?

One doesnt need be an expert in Hebrew, Greek, or Egyptian, or anything like that to understand the Book of Mormon. If that was the case then very few people would understand the book. Out of all the scriptures we have the Book of Mormon is straight forward and very very east to understand. The Nephites did a great job of conveying through the spirit the meaning and convictions of their society and peoples. When Joseph Smith translated the book he did indeed study out the characters that helped him to properly translate the record in the right spirit. This was all done in wisdom of the almighty God in and on our behalf so that we could readily see their society and the problems they faced in their religion and cultures, etc.

My problem with studying is when I have to deal with these so called scientists that tend to make up the story as they go and almost everything hangs on heavily filled conjecture such as migrations from Asia some 20-30 thousand years ago. The Book of Mormon correctly informs us of several events that goes against what modern science says. Its a matter of faith on either side- science has their theory which requires faith to believe and the BoM has as of yet, a lot of unproven, unsettled issues, that require faith to believe. One such is the use of elephants in the time of the Jaredites. Modern science tells us that they were killed off thousands of years prior to the rise of sophisticated cultures in the Americas. The BoM tells a different story. Think about this- if we take something as simple as elephants in the Book of Mormon as real then it flat out refutes science and their dating theories and other anthropology models of society.

One of my big issues is with eberyone and their dog trying to fit this mesoamerican model of the BoM as "the only" possible setting. There is no doubt in my mind that mesoamerica was a "part" of the BoM lands. But I think it is not wise to say anywhere outside of this area was not part of the BoM lands. For example- the text from the BoM informs us that close to the time of Christ they built many small forts, places of resort, and stone walls around their cities and borders. The text makes it out as if this is a major part of their society. But where do we see this in mesoamerica? Stone walls, small forts, and walled cities everywhere do not exist anywhere in mesoamerica. let me ask- is there any place in the Americas where we see walled city ruins and other stone areas on border areas to separate cultures to the extent that it was widespread and part of all neighboring cultures/communities? There is indeed, its in large areas of Peru, Bolivia, etc. Now, lets look for another area that would have ruins of buildings of every kind that would stand the test of time, and signs of a large very sophisticated culture as was described by the Nephites as being the extinct Jaredite peoples? The only palce in the Americas that could possibly be described as such would be mesoamerica.

There are a myriad of other details we could discuss but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. I am not trying to nail down any one area as being a specific place or place a limit on distance when the text doesnt require such. As such, I am able to find actual areas and cultures from around the Americas that exactly mimick the text of what one would find as "evidence" if one were to look. Too often we place unrealistic limits on teh people in theBoM based on faulty or shoddy scientific theories. Its not that I am against science, or professionals opinions or ideas, its that I am against the science that says "it must be so" because this is our science and we are right.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob is correct if you assume a Global Flood 4,000 years ago, but a Global Flood probably did not happen.

It would be very stupid for the Jaredites to have packed up every kind of animal in their area, especially fish and bees, to take on their watertight barges to take to the Americas if their wasnt a global flood that had recently happened. The lood was global, and now, as the Americas were emerging they were pretty lifeless and this is why the Lord God commanded them to take all manner of seed, animals, and even bees to the promised land to repopulate the Americas so that they could survive in the new land of promise.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am sure there are people like you describe but there are also people that accept every scientific idea presented and categorize those who don't as illiterate fools.  Then there are those who study their  scriptures and have an active and open reading list of other material, both scientific and non-scientific, who find problems with some of the extrapolations made from some of the scientific data.  I have been accused by some posters of being close minded, illiterate and other adjectives for some of my questioning of the validity of some of these things.

You make a valid point, ERayR, but what do we do when there are members who have no idea of the virtual warfare which has gone on among the General Authorities over the issue of science vs religion.  Are we to consign scientists like Elders Widtsoe and Talmage to the ash heap of anti-religion just because they did not share certain opinions with some other members of the Twelve?

 

See Jeff Lindsay on the subject at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml .

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be very stupid for the Jaredites to have packed up every kind of animal in their area, especially fish and bees, to take on their watertight barges to take to the Americas if their wasnt a global flood that had recently happened. The lood was global, and now, as the Americas were emerging they were pretty lifeless and this is why the Lord God commanded them to take all manner of seed, animals, and even bees to the promised land to repopulate the Americas so that they could survive in the new land of promise.

They did not carry fish or bees on the barges to the New World.  Another careless reading.  There were already honey bees in the New World waiting for them.  The Americas were not at all lifeless, but were well populated by animals and humans.

 

You have confused the crossing of inland Asian seas (Ether 2:1-13) with the final crossing of the Great Waters of the Pacific Ocean (6:2-13). Of course they had food on board.  Gotta eat.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

One doesnt need be an expert in Hebrew, Greek, or Egyptian, or anything like that to understand the Book of Mormon. If that was the case then very few people would understand the book. Out of all the scriptures we have the Book of Mormon is straight forward and very very east to understand. The Nephites did a great job of conveying through the spirit the meaning and convictions of their society and peoples.

 

If that were the case, Rob, why do you repeatedly misread the English text of the Book of Mormon?  And why are you so contemptuous of those who take the text very seriously?  Why do you keep lashing out at your fellow Saints, just because they take the text seriously?

 

................................................................  

My problem with studying is when I have to deal with these so called scientists that tend to make up the story as they go and almost everything hangs on heavily filled conjecture such as migrations from Asia some 20-30 thousand years ago. The Book of Mormon correctly informs us of several events that goes against what modern science says. Its a matter of faith on either side- science has their theory which requires faith to believe and the BoM has as of yet, a lot of unproven, unsettled issues, that require faith to believe. One such is the use of elephants in the time of the Jaredites. Modern science tells us that they were killed off thousands of years prior to the rise of sophisticated cultures in the Americas. The BoM tells a different story. Think about this- if we take something as simple as elephants in the Book of Mormon as real then it flat out refutes science and their dating theories and other anthropology models of society.

You make such statements as though you had done some research on the matter, which it is clear you have not done.  Not one of your statements in this paragraph can be justified by the text of the Book of Mormon, nor by science. You seem to be making it up as you go, Rob.  Why?

 

Naturally the statements you make here are frequently (and falsely) made by the anti-Mormon crowd, but we expect that.  So, why are you doing it?  Science does not say that there were no elephants in early Jaredite times.  Indeed, science shows it to be very possible.

 

One of my big issues is with eberyone and their dog trying to fit this mesoamerican model of the BoM as "the only" possible setting. There is no doubt in my mind that mesoamerica was a "part" of the BoM lands. But I think it is not wise to say anywhere outside of this area was not part of the BoM lands. For example- the text from the BoM informs us that close to the time of Christ they built many small forts, places of resort, and stone walls around their cities and borders. The text makes it out as if this is a major part of their society. But where do we see this in mesoamerica? Stone walls, small forts, and walled cities everywhere do not exist anywhere in mesoamerica.

let me ask- is there any place in the Americas where we see walled city ruins and other stone areas on border areas to separate cultures to the extent that it was widespread and part of all neighboring cultures/communities? There is indeed, its in large areas of Peru, Bolivia, etc.

Of course all that can be found in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, all the best engineering and materials are there in great profusion.  Where did you get the notion that they weren't?  One does not have to go to then illiterate countries like Bolivia and Peru to find any correlations with the Book of Mormon.  That's like carrying coals to Newcastle.

 

Now, lets look for another area that would have ruins of buildings of every kind that would stand the test of time, and signs of a large very sophisticated culture as was described by the Nephites as being the extinct Jaredite peoples? The only palce in the Americas that could possibly be described as such would be mesoamerica.

Yup.  At least you got one out of ten.

 

There are a myriad of other details we could discuss but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. I am not trying to nail down any one area as being a specific place or place a limit on distance when the text doesnt require such. As such, I am able to find actual areas and cultures from around the Americas that exactly mimick the text of what one would find as "evidence" if one were to look. Too often we place unrealistic limits on teh people in theBoM based on faulty or shoddy scientific theories. Its not that I am against science, or professionals opinions or ideas, its that I am against the science that says "it must be so" because this is our science and we are right.

There are no such other places which "exactly mimick the text," and if you bothered to read some very helpful materials which have been mentioned repeatedly here, you would see that your concerns are without foundation.

 

That is what a real discussion is all about:  Coming to grips with the facts and exchanging views.  All the while learning something new.

[ERayR]

You make a valid point, ERayR, but what do we do when there are members who have no idea of the virtual warfare which has gone on among the General Authorities over the issue of science vs religion.  Are we to consign scientists like Elders Widtsoe and Talmage to the ash heap of anti-religion just because they did not share certain opinions with some other members of the Twelve?

 

See Jeff Lindsay on the subject at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml .

 

We do the same thing with them that we do with those who are ignorant of other data.  We give them the opportunity to have access to the data and allow them to make their own choices.  A good thing to remember is that even those who consider themselves educated and well informed, either willfully or otherwise, have some blind spots and serious gaps in their data.

Edited February 17, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

No one seriously doubts that. But it is serious to go from that truism to claim we know nothing let alone throw out what we do know.

[ERayR]

No one seriously doubts that. But it is serious to go from that truism to claim we know nothing let alone throw out what we do know.

 

It's not what we know that is a problem, it's what we think we know that causes the problems.

[Bob Crockett]

On the contrary, Rob, both of us should expect ourselves to take Scripture seriously enough to study it systematically and carefully, hopefully in languages such as Hebrew and Greek, with possible experience with direct dirt archeology -- gathering evidence in the field and then analyzing it in the lab.  Why do you have contempt for those who study such matters formally?

 

As with any serious endeavor, one cannot expect to simply read a text and immediately understand it without bothering to deal with scholarly analysis of it.  Joseph Smith thought that addressing Scripture with great seriousness involved learning from well-educated associates, such as Sidney Rigdon (who had studied Greek and Hebrew), or Alexander Neibaur (a Christian convert from Judaism before he became a Mormon) -- Hugh Nibley's great-grandfather.  Joseph even thought it important to learn Hebrew from a Jewish instructor there in Kirtland.  Why did Joseph use Hebrew in his King Follett Address in 1844?  Would you have told him then and there that he was being "careless."

 

I don't have contempt for the great learning and technical expertise of my cardiologist.  I want someone advising me and working on me who actually knows what he is doing.  If I don't like his diagnosis, should I tell him that he is being "careless"?

 However, if one claims "science" as proof of the Book of Mormon's MesoAmerican theory,as Dr. Sorenson does, one ought to do so with accepted scientific methodology.  Not a bunch of arm-waving in books published by a religious house where there is no peer acceptance.

 

Or, in the case of Bro. Meldrum, he ought to at least acknowledge that his DNA hooey which dominates much of his discussion is unsupportable in the time line.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Rob Osborn]

If that were the case, Rob, why do you repeatedly misread the English text of the Book of Mormon?  And why are you so contemptuous of those who take the text very seriously?  Why do you keep lashing out at your fellow Saints, just because they take the text seriously?

 

You make such statements as though you had done some research on the matter, which it is clear you have not done.  Not one of your statements in this paragraph can be justified by the text of the Book of Mormon, nor by science. You seem to be making it up as you go, Rob.  Why?

 

Naturally the statements you make here are frequently (and falsely) made by the anti-Mormon crowd, but we expect that.  So, why are you doing it?  Science does not say that there were no elephants in early Jaredite times.  Indeed, science shows it to be very possible.

 

Of course all that can be found in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, all the best engineering and materials are there in great profusion.  Where did you get the notion that they weren't?  One does not have to go to then illiterate countries like Bolivia and Peru to find any correlations with the Book of Mormon.  That's like carrying coals to Newcastle.

 

Yup.  At least you got one out of ten.

 

There are no such other places which "exactly mimick the text," and if you bothered to read some very helpful materials which have been mentioned repeatedly here, you would see that your concerns are without foundation.

 

That is what a real discussion is all about:  Coming to grips with the facts and exchanging views.  All the while learning something new.

Not really getting anywhere. Perhaps you could show me the numerous places in mesoamerica where we find stone walls around all their cities and places and borders. Lets start there.

[Robert F. Smith]

We do the same thing with them that we do with those who are ignorant of other data.  We give them the opportunity to have access to the data and allow them to make their own choices.  A good thing to remember is that even those who consider themselves educated and well informed, either willfully or otherwise, have some blind spots and serious gaps in their data.

Of course.  That's always true.  Hopefully, we can keep each other honest.  That's what dialogue is all about.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not really getting anywhere. Perhaps you could show me the numerous places in mesoamerica where we find stone walls around all their cities and places and borders. Lets start there.

I take it from your silence on the other items that you are properly and humbly aware of just how wrong you were on those other matters, Rob.  That's getting somewhere.

 

You could have looked at http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare for basic information on your question.  Please note, however, we know of only one instance in the Book of Mormon in which stone walls are mentioned, Alma 48:8, during the first century B.C. (cf. Alma 49:13).  Otherwise, Nephite and Lamanite fortifications were typically  earthen (with a moat), with a wood palisade on top (Alma 49:4, 53:3-5) – which was standard throughout Mesoamerica (or just the wood palisade alone, as at Tamarindito).  A low rock wall with palisade could also be used, as depicted here: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4XLp5qnFS2eZ77MvXPkLMtX0bfLG13ZWmiaWdoWwefPfLTz4nyg (and this was true of Punta de Chimino, Quim Chi Hilan, Dos Pilas, and Aguateca – the latter with 5 km of walls around the citadel).  For more, see Heather Irene McKillop, The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives (ABC-CLIO, 2004), 194-196.

 

 

You can see the massive moat and stone wall (which began as an earthen wall) at Mayan Becan, Campeche, Mexico: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/mexico/becan/map.jpg , and http://www.delange.org/Becan/Becan1.jpg .

You can see more of those stone defensive walls at Becan, http://www.delange.org/Becan/DSC00142b.jpg, and http://www.delange.org/Becan/Becan_Defensive_Wall_Eve_DeLange_3.jpg , and https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfQ16SVa5vEaqUiVoSBtqESkMFyRVEU1xpcVab20SiJntZJfhoAw .

 

At Mayan Mayapan, a defensive wall surrounded the site.

Defensive walls have also been found at Tikal, El Mirador, and Seibal, but primarily during the Late Classic.  However, the technology was clearly available quite early.

 

Finally, please note that Book of Mormon civilization must have far more than the stone walls you can find in the Andes Mountains.  It must have books and literacy among at least a select group, it must have cement, and a host of other features of high culture found nowhere else in the Americas than in Mesoamerica.

[Rob Osborn]

I take it from your silence on the other items that you are properly and humbly aware of just how wrong you were on those other matters, Rob.  That's getting somewhere.

 

You could have looked at http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare for basic information on your question.  Please note, however, we know of only one instance in the Book of Mormon in which stone walls are mentioned, Alma 48:8, during the first century B.C. (cf. Alma 49:13).  Otherwise, Nephite and Lamanite fortifications were typically  earthen (with a moat), with a wood palisade on top (Alma 49:4, 53:3-5) – which was standard throughout Mesoamerica (or just the wood palisade alone, as at Tamarindito).  A low rock wall with palisade could also be used, as depicted here: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4XLp5qnFS2eZ77MvXPkLMtX0bfLG13ZWmiaWdoWwefPfLTz4nyg (and this was true of Punta de Chimino, Quim Chi Hilan, Dos Pilas, and Aguateca – the latter with 5 km of walls around the citadel).  For more, see Heather Irene McKillop, The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives (ABC-CLIO, 2004), 194-196.

 

 

You can see the massive moat and stone wall (which began as an earthen wall) at Mayan Becan, Campeche, Mexico: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/mexico/becan/map.jpg , and http://www.delange.org/Becan/Becan1.jpg .

You can see more of those stone defensive walls at Becan, http://www.delange.org/Becan/DSC00142b.jpg, and http://www.delange.org/Becan/Becan_Defensive_Wall_Eve_DeLange_3.jpg , and https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfQ16SVa5vEaqUiVoSBtqESkMFyRVEU1xpcVab20SiJntZJfhoAw .

 

At Mayan Mayapan, a defensive wall surrounded the site.

Defensive walls have also been found at Tikal, El Mirador, and Seibal, but primarily during the Late Classic.  However, the technology was clearly available quite early.

 

Finally, please note that Book of Mormon civilization must have far more than the stone walls you can find in the Andes Mountains.  It must have books and literacy among at least a select group, it must have cement, and a host of other features of high culture found nowhere else in the Americas than in Mesoamerica.

So, you found a couple of city ruins in the Yucatan to have some partial defensive walls. It was a rare thing by the Maya to have such and anyone who knows the Mayan culture knows this. I also note that all of your examples of stone walls are in places on the outside of Nephi and on the borders to the east of Zarahemla in a direction away from the encroaching Lamanites on the south as proposed by the mesoamerican theory. I still see you havent provided any stone wall that is on the border of the land between neighboring nations. I find it of interest here that also there is no wall anywhere in mesoamerica high enough that it took ropes and ladders to get down in as spoken of in the BoM. The area around Peru has such numerous sites. In fact, almost every single one of the ruins in Peru has defensive walls and walls of stone around their cities. Also, there is a wall of stones that separates their borders running through Peru from the ocean into the mountains. I also see no instance of fortifictations in the mountains as used by the Gadianton robbers that were impenetrable. You see these all over in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.

As for writing, the only instance of writing being shown within a large culture is indeed the Mayan and its area of influence. But, the writing system used is not in any way Nephite/Lamanite which would of used some type of Hebrew/reformed Egyptian. I would tend to believe the Mayan writing was probably Jaredite in origin. The Jaredite nation was the largest of all the BoM peoples.

[Gervin]

We'll know more about rigorous scrutiny after it has been published. I learned on my last book that regardless of what you see from people beforehand, what comes later can be surprising (though somethings not necessarily rigorous). 

 

However, I can tell you that I have read several books discussing historiography and attempted to make sure that I follow accepted procedures. In particular, William G. Dever provided an excellent listing of what he thinks should be done when archaeology is compared to a text (in his case, the Bible). It is found in his What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? I found that list generally applicable to the problems in dealing with archaeology and the Book of Mormon. To a great extent, I use that methodology. We will see how well people think I did, but I can't believe that the fundamental methodology I have worked with wouldn't be reasonably sound, or at least almost as reasonably sound as Dever's.

thanks.

 

Can you provide Dever's list and/or an extract from your writing of how you applied it to your analysis?