salgare Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: The official position of The LDS Amateur Apologetics Society is that the Nephite nation abandoned all uniquely identifiable characteristics of their Israelite roots and adopted every single identifiable aspect of the native populations with which they merged upon their arrival in the America's thus making a Nephite artifact undistinguishable from a Mayan, Aztec and Olmec artifact. What native populations? I heard it was an empty continent (a promised land saved for them) when they got here?
Kevin Christensen Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, salgare said: What native populations? I heard it was an empty continent (a promised land saved for them) when they got here? See, for example, Matt Roper, for a careful and informed approach to the issue, with "Nephi's Neighbors." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited January 22, 2016 by Kevin Christensen 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 10 minutes ago, salgare said: What native populations? I heard it was an empty continent (a promised land saved for them) when they got here? It wasn't empty, as in no one. However population densities did vary from placed to place. It has been estimated that what was to become the US had about 3 million natives in 1492. But that Mesoamerica, a much smaller area, had perhaps a few times that many.
CA Steve Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 41 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: It wasn't empty, as in no one. However population densities did vary from placed to place. It has been estimated that what was to become the US had about 3 million natives in 1492. But that Mesoamerica, a much smaller area, had perhaps a few times that many. Quotes (most of which are readily acknowledged as guesses) I have seen for North America population in 1492 range from just slightly less than a million to more than 12 million. Mesoamerican quotes go as high as 100 million. See here and here 1
salgare Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Amazing they were never mentioned in the book.
Anijen Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 4 hours ago, salgare said: What native populations? I heard it was an empty continent (a promised land saved for them) when they got here? 4 hours ago, salgare said: What native populations? I heard it was an empty continent (a promised land saved for them) when they got here? The Church has responded to this and say there were people here
thesometimesaint Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 19 hours ago, CA Steve said: Quotes (most of which are readily acknowledged as guesses) I have seen for North America population in 1492 range from just slightly less than a million to more than 12 million. Mesoamerican quotes go as high as 100 million. See here and here Coulds be. I think a hundred million is too high. The resources just aren't there. I haven't give it a whole lot study, so I could be wrong.
bcuzbcuz Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 On 21 January 2016 at 9:32 PM, volgadon said: You have yet to explain why it is reasonable that a pottery shard should reflect things like kingship and judges. When someone finds such an article, we'll know. So far, every single artifact, whether shard or whole pottery, fit well within the defined frameworks of Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, etc., etc. Cultures. I suggest you read some of Flinders-Petrie's work on defining pre-historic Egyptian pottery shards to get an idea about how rigourous a precedure identification of pottery shards is. Better still, visit the Flinders-Petrie museum at the UCL museum in London, UK and see how shards are classified.
bcuzbcuz Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 On 22 January 2016 at 5:10 PM, thesometimesaint said: We don't know what a specifically Nephite artifact would look like. IE: A shepherds crook was a common tool though out the middle east. Is it reflective of Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., etc., etc.? But we know what it isn't. It isn't what has been found so far because the artifacts so far fit into the cultures currently defined.
ERayR Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: But we know what it isn't. It isn't what has been found so far because the artifacts so far fit into the cultures currently defined. So did the Nephite culture. 2
Mike Reed Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Raff said it was important to accurately examine the populating of the Americas, especially because many times in American history those who favor the idea of a European influence upon Native Americans have used that to take away from their tribal sovereignty and cultural achievements."That is really troubling not just because it's bad science, but also because it's trying to disassociate contemporary Native Americans from their history," Raff said. "Even though I don't believe authors of the Solutrean hypothesis intended it this way, it's just another facet of that move to separate Native Americans from their ancestors." -----
volgadon Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: When someone finds such an article, we'll know. So far, every single artifact, whether shard or whole pottery, fit well within the defined frameworks of Aztec, Mayan, Olmec, etc., etc. Cultures. I suggest you read some of Flinders-Petrie's work on defining pre-historic Egyptian pottery shards to get an idea about how rigourous a precedure identification of pottery shards is. Better still, visit the Flinders-Petrie museum at the UCL museum in London, UK and see how shards are classified. Here is an experiment. Take pottery shards from known cultures and see if by themselves they could tell you much at all regarding the same categories of things (like governmental forms) that you insist Nephite shards could do. However much I would love to visit the Flinders-Petrie museum, and I would, I guess that my visiting dozens of digs and museums in Israel will have to suffice. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 On 1/21/2016 at 10:13 AM, Avatar4321 said: dont you have the president and the supreme court on every bowl and cup you use? imagine what future societies would conclude from our pottery. We worship blue willow trees? 2
volgadon Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 🍧 Dr 8 minutes ago, Mike Reed said: Raff said it was important to accurately examine the populating of the Americas, especially because many times in American history those who favor the idea of a European influence upon Native Americans have used that to take away from their tribal sovereignty and cultural achievements."That is really troubling not just because it's bad science, but also because it's trying to disassociate contemporary Native Americans from their history," Raff said. "Even though I don't believe authors of the Solutrean hypothesis intended it this way, it's just another facet of that move to separate Native Americans from their ancestors." ----- In this case the argument is that the Old World group adopted the preexisting New World material culture. This puts the latter in a position of strength relative to the former. 3
Gervin Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) On 1/22/2016 at 1:45 AM, volgadon said: . error Edited January 23, 2016 by Gervin
Gervin Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 On 1/22/2016 at 6:10 AM, Hamba Tuhan said: Nope, but I strongly suspect they're hiding in an undisclosed location with all of the archaeological evidence for the presence of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt and for the Exodus. You're confused. My point was that cultures leave artifacts. You're looking for artifacts to verify events.
volgadon Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 34 minutes ago, Gervin said: You're confused. My point was that cultures leave artifacts. You're looking for artifacts to verify events. The presence of the Hebrews in Egypt is an event rather than a culture? Most convenient. 3
bcuzbcuz Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 47 minutes ago, volgadon said: Here is an experiment. Take pottery shards from known cultures and see if by themselves they could tell you much at all regarding the same categories of things (like governmental forms) that you insist Nephite shards could do. However much I would love to visit the Flinders-Petrie museum, and I would, I guess that my visiting dozens of digs and museums in Israel will have to suffice. Israel? Well then you should be well acquainted with Flinders Petrie. He was an absolutely outstanding Egyptologist but he tired of others stealing his thunder or those, who by luck, found discoveries that overshadowed his greatest efforts, and left Egypt to dig and dust in Palestine. His work in the Levant is equally outststanding. Look it up. And yes, his work that identifies pottery shards has established the standard for all archaeology. Look it up.
volgadon Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: Israel? Well then you should be well acquainted with Flinders Petrie. He was an absolutely outstanding Egyptologist but he tired of others stealing his thunder or those, who by luck, found discoveries that overshadowed his greatest efforts, and left Egypt to dig and dust in Palestine. His work in the Levant is equally outststanding. Look it up. And yes, his work that identifies pottery shards has established the standard for all archaeology. Look it up. Yes, I know who the father of scientific archaeology in Egypt and the Levant was. I've been by the site of his first dig in Palestine/Israel, the first really modern and methodic excavation of a tell. However, in your namedropping you might wish to consider just what sequential ceramic dating can and cannot do. For example, did it help its creator correctly identify the location of Lachish? 2
bcuzbcuz Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 14 hours ago, volgadon said: Yes, I know who the father of scientific archaeology in Egypt and the Levant was. I've been by the site of his first dig in Palestine/Israel, the first really modern and methodic excavation of a tell. However, in your namedropping you might wish to consider just what sequential ceramic dating can and cannot do. For example, did it help its creator correctly identify the location of Lachish? Wow, you can really take leaps of logic....but I'm not sure why. No, Flinders-Petrie didn't identify Lachish during his work in the Levant. But what that has to do with anything is a puzzle to me. Flinders-Petrie's work, while monumental, was always a few steps short of having blind luck. Pottery work in Lachish, or pottery work anywhere in pre-historic Egypt, or pottery work in the Americas were never stamped with "Made in ..........". Pottery workers sometimes signed their work. They sometimes even wrote grafitti at their work sites. But pottery styles, while often initially copied or influenced from neighbouring styles, show that communities eventually created pottery identifiable by their own culture traits. So far, no pottery (shards or whole containers) of any type have been identified as representing an unidentified culture of the Americas i.e. Nephite, lamanite or Jaredite.
volgadon Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Wow, you can really take leaps of logic....but I'm not sure why. No, Flinders-Petrie didn't identify Lachish during his work in the Levant. But what that has to do with anything is a puzzle to me. Flinders-Petrie's work, while monumental, was always a few steps short of having blind luck. Pottery work in Lachish, or pottery work anywhere in pre-historic Egypt, or pottery work in the Americas were never stamped with "Made in ..........". Pottery workers sometimes signed their work. They sometimes even wrote grafitti at their work sites. But pottery styles, while often initially copied or influenced from neighbouring styles, show that communities eventually created pottery identifiable by their own culture traits. So far, no pottery (shards or whole containers) of any type have been identified as representing an unidentified culture of the Americas i.e. Nephite, lamanite or Jaredite. It is less that he did not identify Lachish and more that his positive identification failed utterly. This was Tel el-Hesi, site of his aforementioned first dig in Palestine. His expedition's goal was to excavate Lachish, and he chose el-Hesi on the strength of a few pottery shards and the somewhat-similar name of a nearby Arab village. He was convinced that this was Lachish, and that became the consensus until the Lachish letters were discovered. For all his merits as a methodical archaeologist, he was pretty sloppy when it came to the identity of sites. In this case, it was definitely a leap based on faulty assumptions about what pottery shards can actually tell us, something rather relevant to this discussion.To this day, no one has convincingly establish Tel el-Hesi's identity and history. You would think that at least establishing the latter would be a snap if your explanation of the Flinders Petrie method were sound. I'm not sure this is the case, as the method depends on the assumption that the ceramic cultures of the various peoples of the ancient Near East developed similarly. In other words, that the similarities outweigh the differences. Because of this similar evolution, the chronology of various layers of settlement can be synchronised. The method is not as helpful for interpreting differences between cultures and establishing their identities. Pottery catalogues are probably closer to what you are arguing, but although both are important for the other, a lot more goes into cataloguing than serification. At the very least, the diffusion theory inherent in the method can be challenged, and that is a serious challenge. There is a reason that things like pig bones are considered more helpful in establishing ethnic identity than ceramics when it comes to questions like identifying early Israelites. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 On 22/1/2016 at 2:58 AM, Johnnie Cake said: In your above quoted post you state that..."standard archaeology, which instead looks at evidence that does exist and then tries to interpret it in light of what else is known and assumed." Isn't this what I've been saying from the very beginning? No, not really. What you've essentially been saying is that a) you've figured out in your head what Nephite material culture should look like, and b) since none of this imagined evidence has yet been found, this should be seen as proof that Nephites really didn't exist. Neither of these points matches what archaeology is or does. 1
Gervin Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 On 1/23/2016 at 4:40 PM, volgadon said: The presence of the Hebrews in Egypt is an event rather than a culture? Most convenient. Describe the culture you believe these Hebrews would have exhibited as slaves in Egypt, pre Mosaic Law. Please.
volgadon Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Gervin said: Describe the culture you believe these Hebrews would have exhibited as slaves in Egypt, pre Mosaic Law. Please. Foreign pastoralists from Canaan (not Hyksos) organised into twelve tribes following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Come on, we even know where they were supposed to have lived for four hundred years. Can you not show even a single pottery shard? 2
Gervin Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 5 hours ago, volgadon said: Foreign pastoralists from Canaan (not Hyksos) organised into twelve tribes following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Come on, we even know where they were supposed to have lived for four hundred years. Can you not show even a single pottery shard? You're in Tiberias? I've stayed a few times at the YMCA that sits a few miles north on the right. Great place to swim.
Recommended Posts