Swords Cankered with Rust...How Exactly do Wooden Swords Rust?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

World's first compass? Really? Isn't this just a tad "presentism"? Our concept that a bit of magnetite, which aligns with a north-south directions could be used as a compass pre-supposes that the person/people using it see either north as up or a direction worth noting, or the same for a southerly direction. ......................................................

Maybe you misunderstand:  The premier archeologist in the world on the Olmec, Prof. Michael Coe of Yale, declared that this magnetite pointer (which appeared to have been "machined") was the world's first compass.  He tested it.  If your argument is that he is wrong, then you might want to provide adequate reasons for your rejection of his position.

[cinepro]

On 6/10/2016 at 6:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are claiming that we have adequate knowledge of the Olmec period in Mesoamerica?  Perhaps you would like to cite your source(s).

Ultimately, your argument is that we can't be 100% sure that the Olmec's didn't have something.  Fine, that is logically correct.  But it is an argument that is totally based on defending a claim in the Book of Mormon

If President Monson stood up in Conference and said it was revealed to him that the Jaredites had iPads, that wouldn't be any less believable than what is being discussed here.  Sure, there is no way we could prove that they didn't have tablet technology, or apologists could argue that they had writing on stones or metal plates and that is similar to the experience of reading an iPad, so that is what President Monson meant.  But that involves moving past the "text" into the realm of creative interpretation and supposition, which isn't really an argument or defense.

 

Quote

[9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

Ether 7

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Ultimately, your argument is that we can't be 100% sure that the Olmec's didn't have something.  Fine, that is logically correct.  But it is an argument that is totally based on defending a claim in the Book of Mormon

If President Monson stood up in Conference and said it was revealed to him that the Jaredites had iPads, that wouldn't be any less believable than what is being discussed here.  Sure, there is no way we could prove that they didn't have tablet technology, or apologists could argue that they had writing on stones or metal plates and that is similar to the experience of reading an iPad, so that is what President Monson meant.  But that involves moving past the "text" into the realm of creative interpretation and supposition, which isn't really an argument or defense.

You are over-fixated on the use "molten" as a description of a process that the Nephites probably didn't have.  We do know that various cultures used iron/steel swords long before they made the technology to melt iron.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

You are over-fixated on the use "molten" as a description of a process that the Nephites probably didn't have.  We do know that various cultures used iron/steel swords long before they made the technology to melt iron.

The text describes in detail how Nephi used bellows to smelt ore. He also says he taught his people these skills. In short, it's not a fixation on a single word but simply going by the explicit description in the text.

The smelting process is the anachronism.

[thesometimesaint]

The Nephites were not Nephi. Technology is lost pretty regularly. IE; Not many Americans today have the knowledge and skill to make, and shoe a horse. Yet a little over 100 years ago blacksmithing was a well established trade here in America. A hundred years from now it might not exist at all. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Nephites were not Nephi. Technology is lost pretty regularly. IE; Not many Americans today have the knowledge and skill to make, and shoe a horse. Yet a little over 100 years ago blacksmithing was a well established trade here in America. A hundred years from now it might not exist at all. 

Yes, but he taught them how to do it. 

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Some 200-300 years later, they were still using the same methods:

8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

And 200 or so years later, it was still being used.

 11 And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

And that's not even mentioning the Jaredites, who reported making their weapons out of molten ore.

In summary, we have two civilizations spanning more than 1500 years, conservatively, using smelting technology. 

[thesometimesaint]

No we don't. There are no indications that the technology survived for working iron/steel. As I've said before Mesoamerican's obviously knew about the wheel, but no indications it was widely used. No one doubts that Mesoamerican's knew how to work gold and silver. Which can be hammered/melted and worked at relatively low temperatures. We just don't have Mesoamerican examples of Iron/steel swords. Which for a variety of reasons probably couldn't have survived.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_technology

Mesoamerica & Andean Region

Lacking suitable beasts of burden and inhabiting domains often too mountainous or boggy for wheeled transport, the ancient civilizations of the Americas did not develop wheeled transport or the mechanics associated with animal power. Nevertheless, they produced advanced engineering including above ground and underground acqeducts, quake-proof masonry, artificial lakes, dykes, 'fountains,' pressurized water,^[9] road ways and complex terracing. Equally, gold-working commenced early in Peru (2000 BCE),^[10] and eventually copper, tin, lead and bronze were used.^{[citation needed]} Although metallurgy did not spread to Mesoamerica until the Middle Ages, it was employed here and in the Andes for sophisticated alloys and gilding. The Native Americans developed a complex understanding of the chemical properties or utility of natural substances, with the result that a majority of the world's early medicinal drugs and edible crops, many important adhesives, paints, fibres, plasters, and other useful items were the products of these civilizations.^{[citation needed]} Perhaps the best-known Mesoamerican invention was rubber, which was used to create rubber bands, rubber bindings, balls, syringes, 'raincoats,' boots, and waterproof insulation on containers and flasks.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Ultimately, your argument is that we can't be 100% sure that the Olmec's didn't have something.  Fine, that is logically correct.  But it is an argument that is totally based on defending a claim in the Book of Mormon

That is most assuredly not my argument.  When we have adequate excavation in the Olmec region, we might be able to say something meaningful.  What we have now is so paltry that no anthropologist worth his salt would make a final declaration, but it is enough to give us great pause.  In any case, all archeological excavations only take a very small slice of any given site -- a mere sampling -- and luck and cunning are the only arbiters of what comes forth from those particular portions of any dig.  It can take decades (sometimes generations) to come up with a meaningful and diachronic story about a particular culture.  But that depends upon good, dependable funding, which is not often available.  Your "call to perfection" is a classic fallacy, cinepro.  And it is absurd.  It has nothing to do with defending the BofM, but everything to do with the intentions and actions of non-Mormon archeologists (such as Mike Coe).  Indeed, anyone digging in order to prove the Book of Mormon is likely poisoning the wells through his actions.  Better to have "gentile respectability," as Nibley used to say.

If President Monson stood up in Conference and said it was revealed to him that the Jaredites had iPads, that wouldn't be any less believable than what is being discussed here.  Sure, there is no way we could prove that they didn't have tablet technology, or apologists could argue that they had writing on stones or metal plates and that is similar to the experience of reading an iPad, so that is what President Monson meant.  But that involves moving past the "text" into the realm of creative interpretation and supposition, which isn't really an argument or defense.

What you say here is so extreme and irresponsible that it beggars reply.  It is a non sequitur on par with asking whether someone is still beating his wife with an iPad.  He is guilty either way.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, but he taught them how to do it. 

[2 Ne 5:]15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Some 200-300 years later, they were still using the same methods:

[Jarom]8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

And 200 or so years later, it was still being used.

[Hela 6:]11 And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich.

And that's not even mentioning the Jaredites, who reported making their weapons out of molten ore.

In summary, we have two civilizations spanning more than 1500 years, conservatively, using smelting technology. 

Excellent summary, although it would be nice of you to supply full citations to Scripture for those unable to follow the discussion.  You might also want to distinguish between actual melting of ore and the mere softening of it to create a bloom which can be worked by a blacksmith.  There are important temperature and technical differences, which we have discussed on this board in the past.  Blurring those distinctions might lead to some misunderstandings of the text, along with unrealistic expectations.  The naive are so easily taken in . . .

I take it that you are well aware that a full-scale steel manufacturing technology existed in the Judah and South Arabia of Lehi's day.  The transfer of such technology to the New World would pose no problem for a competent blacksmith (recall the mention of bellows at 1 Ne 17:11).  The later disappearance of that technology would also not be any surprise.  It has happened many times.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent summary, although it would be nice of you to supply full citations to Scripture for those unable to follow the discussion.  You might also want to distinguish between actual melting of ore and the mere softening of it to create a bloom which can be worked by a blacksmith.  There are important temperature and technical differences, which we have discussed on this board in the past.  Blurring those distinctions might lead to some misunderstandings of the text, along with unrealistic expectations.  The naive are so easily taken in . . .

I take it that you are well aware that a full-scale steel manufacturing technology existed in the Judah and South Arabia of Lehi's day.  The transfer of such technology to the New World would pose no problem for a competent blacksmith (recall the mention of bellows at 1 Ne 17:11).  The later disappearance of that technology would also not be any surprise.  It has happened many times.

Are you suggesting that someone is trying to "take in" the naïve?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No we don't. There are no indications that the technology survived for working iron/steel. As I've said before Mesoamerican's obviously knew about the wheel, but no indications it was widely used. No one doubts that Mesoamerican's knew how to work gold and silver. Which can be hammered/melted and worked at relatively low temperatures. We just don't have Mesoamerican examples of Iron/steel swords. Which for a variety of reasons probably couldn't have survived.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_technology

Mesoamerica & Andean Region

Lacking suitable beasts of burden and inhabiting domains often too mountainous or boggy for wheeled transport, the ancient civilizations of the Americas did not develop wheeled transport or the mechanics associated with animal power. Nevertheless, they produced advanced engineering including above ground and underground acqeducts, quake-proof masonry, artificial lakes, dykes, 'fountains,' pressurized water,^[9] road ways and complex terracing. Equally, gold-working commenced early in Peru (2000 BCE),^[10] and eventually copper, tin, lead and bronze were used.^{[citation needed]} Although metallurgy did not spread to Mesoamerica until the Middle Ages, it was employed here and in the Andes for sophisticated alloys and gilding. The Native Americans developed a complex understanding of the chemical properties or utility of natural substances, with the result that a majority of the world's early medicinal drugs and edible crops, many important adhesives, paints, fibres, plasters, and other useful items were the products of these civilizations.^{[citation needed]} Perhaps the best-known Mesoamerican invention was rubber, which was used to create rubber bands, rubber bindings, balls, syringes, 'raincoats,' boots, and waterproof insulation on containers and flasks.

Nice summary, sometimes.  Glad to see you are reading up on these various cultures.  But, eventually, you will have to go beyond Wiki to get the dope on ancient America.  However, this is a creditable start.  Bravo.  I wanted to give you a reputation point . . .

Edited June 16, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you suggesting that someone is trying to "take in" the naïve?

As you know, there are indeed people who blur nearly everything in order to take in the unaware.  I am for full disclosure, and let the chips fall where they may.  That way no gets flimflammed.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As you know, there are indeed people who blur nearly everything in order to take in the unaware.  I am for full disclosure, and let the chips fall where they may.  That way no gets flimflammed.

Then it is a good thing you are here to point out those who blur and take in the unwary. 

[Rajah Manchou]

18 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

World's first compass? Really? Isn't this just a tad "presentism"? Our concept that a bit of magnetite, which aligns with a north-south directions could be used as a compass pre-supposes that the person/people using it see either north as up or a direction worth noting, or the same for a southerly direction. Read the article from BBC, where the discussion of map alignment is dealt with.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different

Such a good article. 

Presentism is too easy, and its probably one of the main reasons we have failed to identify a Book of Mormon geography. If we look at the world through the eyes of a Hebrew, Phoenician, Arab or Lehite in the 6th century BC, things would look very different. I doubt Isaiah or Nephi would have even been able to imagine the New World without making reference to getting fried by the rising sun or getting eaten by sea dragons. In 600 BC, there was nothing beyond the Red Sea. India was barely known, if it was even known at all. And Paradise and the Garden of Eden were somewhere in the east.

It wasn't until Amerigo Vespucci and Magellan went west across the Atlantic that we started to get the idea that there was a huge continent in between Europe and the East Indies. Even Columbus was looking for Paradise in East Asia and thought he had found it. He probably died unaware that he had discovered a new world. This was one of the maps (globes) he used with a tracing of America added:



That's what the world looked like to the gentile that was led by God to the promised land in the isles of the sea. To Isaiah and Lehi it would have been even more compact. All those islands are the "isles of the sea" as Columbus would have known from his Bible readings. Was there any difference between Indonesia and the Caribbean in the mind of Columbus and anybody before him? Is our presentism preventing us from seeing the promised land in the way Isaiah, Nephi and even Columbus would have seen it? There are a lot of islands in the sea, many of them with civilizations appearing right at 2500 BC with iron appearing around 600 BC. They have silk, domesticated elephants, horses, and cankered iron swords. Why must we limit the field to a continent where none of these things are found, especially when we consider that the Book of Mormon makes reference to an island or peninsular environment that does not resemble a continent at all? 

Or perhaps we're doomed to debate whether or not there were domesticated elephants and iron swords in prehistoric Guatemala forever. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Or perhaps we're doomed to debate whether or not there were domesticated elephants and iron swords in prehistoric Guatemala forever. 

Yeah, but that's more fun.

One of the problems of discussing these issues is that people can't agree on the field of study. Are we limited to the Americas because the prophets, seers, and revelators (and an angel) have told us the Book of Mormon took place here? Are we limited to what the text says explicitly or implicitly, or what it doesn't say at all? Where we define the field of study in large part determines the aims, standards, and conclusions of what we study. Hayden White has written that histories are not written as accounts of what happened in the past but are shaped by the tropes and structures the historian uses to "prefigure" the field of discourse. In other words, structure/tropes chosen determine the boundaries and conclusions of the field of study. This is a less-definitive way of saying what Luis Puenzo wrote, "No hay pruebas porque la historia la escriben los asesinos" (There's never any proof  [of murder] because history is written by the murderers). When the limitations are accepted by the larger community, Kuhn calls these "paradigms," and all study is constrained by the limits of the paradigm. I understand that you and Robert, among others, believe that I am setting up the field of discourse and its expectations based on a narrow reading of the text, but rather I am responding to attempts to shoehorn American archaeology into the limitations of the text.

In my view, if we take the text at face value, there is no good match in the Americas for either the Jaredite or Nephite/Lamanite civilizations, but again, why limit ourselves to a "straight" reading of the text? When I have argued against iron/steel swords among the Olmec, it is precisely because such efforts attempt to harmonize this "straight" reading of the text with an equally straight reading of the archaeological record. I'm sorry, but the text describes a particular technology that, so far, is not shown in the archaeological record. Again, polished ore is something you use because you don't have smelting technology and you can't "refine" the ore (Helaman 6:11) in the first place. So, you have two choices: keep looking for evidence of smelters or other refining processes, or you expand the field of discourse. The former is a dead end, IMO.

Of course, most of us recognize that the value of the Book of Mormon lies not in its insights into ancient America but in its spiritual impact on millions of people. How and why it moves people so profoundly is, to me, a much more interesting discussion than whether or not the Nephites had horses.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Then it is a good thing you are here to point out those who blur and take in the unwary. 

There is no reason to think that the unwary and naive are here on this board at all.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

One of the problems of discussing these issues is that people can't agree on the field of study. Are we limited to the Americas because the prophets, seers, and revelators (and an angel) have told us the Book of Mormon took place here? Are we limited to what the text says explicitly or implicitly, or what it doesn't say at all? Where we define the field of study in large part determines the aims, standards, and conclusions of what we study. Hayden White has written that histories are not written as accounts of what happened in the past but are shaped by the tropes and structures the historian uses to "prefigure" the field of discourse. In other words, structure/tropes chosen determine the boundaries and conclusions of the field of study. This is a less-definitive way of saying what Luis Puenzo wrote, "No hay pruebas porque la historia la escriben los asesinos" (There's never any proof  [of murder] because history is written by the murderers). When the limitations are accepted by the larger community, Kuhn calls these "paradigms," and all study is constrained by the limits of the paradigm. I understand that you and Robert, among others, believe that I am setting up the field of discourse and its expectations based on a narrow reading of the text, but rather I am responding to attempts to shoehorn American archaeology into the limitations of the text.

There is certainly a place for both minimalists and maximalists in such discussion, as we know from the vociferous debate in biblical archeology (though I doubt that anyone on this board bothers to keep up with it).  I frankly prefer a middle path, rather than dogged adherence to the extremes.  Moreover, I don't believe that you take the discussion seriously enough, and that this is why you so often misstate the basic facts at issue.  I don't really mind a narrow reading of the text, but more precision would be helpful -- along with acceptance of anthropological reality.

In my view, if we take the text at face value, there is no good match in the Americas for either the Jaredite or Nephite/Lamanite civilizations, but again, why limit ourselves to a "straight" reading of the text? When I have argued against iron/steel swords among the Olmec, it is precisely because such efforts attempt to harmonize this "straight" reading of the text with an equally straight reading of the archaeological record. I'm sorry, but the text describes a particular technology that, so far, is not shown in the archaeological record. Again, polished ore is something you use because you don't have smelting technology and you can't "refine" the ore (Helaman 6:11) in the first place. So, you have two choices: keep looking for evidence of smelters or other refining processes, or you expand the field of discourse. The former is a dead end, IMO.

You make absurd demands on archeology, which foreclose even the possiblity of finding anything before the search has even begun, which is really a consequence of your apriorism.  Had Petrie or other pioneers in Near Eastern archeology started out with such a defeatest attitude, we would never have gotten off dead center and made the enormous progress we have made -- which has been revolutionary in our appraisal of what in fact took place in the ancient Near East.  Guys like you would be standing around declaring "See, I told you there was nothing here," but only because no one bothered to look.  Your "structure/tropes chosen determine the boundaries and conclusions," as you yourself said.

You say that "there is no good match in the Americas for either the Jaredite or Nephite/Lamanite civilizations," but on what basis?  Like every minimalist, you take the absence of a key item here or there as absolutely determinative, and pointedly ignore the preponderance of evidence, which is the approach I take in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Real historians know that no history can be matched exactly, that there will never be a one-for-one correspondence.  Real historiography is heuristic in nature. Consider for a moment what we would say if, after adequate research, it were determined that the Americas had a more or less undifferentiated woodland Amerind culture (not much different in nature from the Algonquian or Iriquois nations, but throughout north and south America).  You would then certainly have a strong point to make, and I would be at a loss.   However, what we find instead are high, literate cultures in Mesoamerica, which just happen to rise and fall in a sequence strongly correlated in time with the Book of Mormon cultures.  The knee-jerk reaction is often that everything is perforce coincidence, but just how many coincidences are you willing to posit?

Of course, most of us recognize that the value of the Book of Mormon lies not in its insights into ancient America but in its spiritual impact on millions of people. How and why it moves people so profoundly is, to me, a much more interesting discussion than whether or not the Nephites had horses.

One  might take a similar approach to the Bible, even if not necessarily for the same reasons.

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is certainly a place for both minimalists and maximalists in such discussion, as we know from the vociferous debate in biblical archeology (though I doubt that anyone on this board bothers to keep up with it).  I frankly prefer a middle path, rather than dogged adherence to the extremes.  Moreover, I don't believe that you take the discussion seriously enough, and that this is why you so often misstate the basic facts at issue.  I don't really mind a narrow reading of the text, but more precision would be helpful -- along with acceptance of anthropological reality.

You make absurd demands on archeology, which foreclose even the possiblity of finding anything before the search has even begun, which is really a consequence of your apriorism.  Had Petrie or other pioneers in Near Eastern archeology started out with such a defeatest attitude, we would never have gotten off dead center and made the enormous progress we have made -- which has been revolutionary in our appraisal of what in fact took place in the ancient Near East.  Guys like you would be standing around declaring "See, I told you there was nothing here," but only because no one bothered to look.  Your "structure/tropes chosen determine the boundaries and conclusions," as you yourself said.

You say that "there is no good match in the Americas for either the Jaredite or Nephite/Lamanite civilizations," but on what basis?  Like every minimalist, you take the absence of a key item here or there as absolutely determinative, and pointedly ignore the preponderance of evidence, which is the approach I take in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Real historians know that no history can be matched exactly, that there will never be a one-for-one correspondence.  Real historiography is heuristic in nature. Consider for a moment what we would say if, after adequate research, it were determined that the Americas had a more or less undifferentiated woodland Amerind culture (not much different in nature from the Algonquian or Iriquois nations, but throughout north and south America).  You would then certainly have a strong point to make, and I would be at a loss.   However, what we find instead are high, literate cultures in Mesoamerica, which just happen to rise and fall in a sequence strongly correlated in time with the Book of Mormon cultures.  The knee-jerk reaction is often that everything is perforce coincidence, but just how many coincidences are you willing to posit?

Of course, most of us recognize that the value of the Book of Mormon lies not in its insights into ancient America but in its spiritual impact on millions of people. How and why it moves people so profoundly is, to me, a much more interesting discussion than whether or not the Nephites had horses.

One  might take a similar approach to the Bible, even if not necessarily for the same reasons.

Wow, a lot to unpack, but may I just say I don't recognize the closed-minded defeatist you describe. We should always open to new data and new interpretation, but over more than 30 years of looking at the history and archaeology, including 4 years of formal study at BYU, I have not seen much of anything either on a minimalist or maximalist level that supports the "straight" reading of the Book of Mormon text, and if anything, what archaeologists are discovering continues to point away from that straight reading. Your characterizing of me as someone who can't distinguish between an Iroquois band and an Aymaran ayllu reminds me of the people who assumed I must have eaten a lot of beans and tortillas on my mission (never had either). 

You seem to think that is because I don't want to see it or "make absurd demands on archaeology that foreclose even the possibility of finding anything before the search has begun." Nonsense. By all means, keep looking, keep re-evaluating, but as I said, the value of the book has nothing to do with its historicity, and I think its impact on millions of people is a far more interesting and valuable subject than attempts to equate grinding ore with sophisticated metallurgy. Trying to find archaeological/historical evidence for the Book of Mormon is not a dead-end only because the evidence isn't there but because it's beside the point. 

As for the accusation that I expect an exact match with a "one-to-one correspondence," again, that is just silly hyperbole. Back when I was an undergrad, I had a class in ancient American history from George Addy, who said, "If you're in this class to learn about Nephites and Lamanites, you['re in the wrong place. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Nephites, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying." This was of course pretty shocking to me, and for the next 20 or so years I was as gung-ho in looking for anything that "correlated," strongly or otherwise, with the Book of Mormon cultures. I finally stopped hoping against hope and accepted that, although it was a bit of an overstatement, Dr. Addy was essentially right, and the evidence isn't there. I suppose that might be a knee-jerk reaction, if it takes 20 years for a knee to jerk.

Even at this point in my life, I would be quite excited to see something even slightly solid. I'm just not holding my breath.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice summary, sometimes.  Glad to see you are reading up on these various cultures.  But, eventually, you will have to go beyond Wiki to get the dope on ancient America.  However, this is a creditable start.  Bravo.  I wanted to give you a reputation point . . .

I'm not an archaeologist in any sense of the word, but I have read books by Sorenson, and FARMS. I tend to agree with them, I still await confirming evidence.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand that you and Robert, among others, believe that I am setting up the field of discourse and its expectations based on a narrow reading of the text, but rather I am responding to attempts to shoehorn American archaeology into the limitations of the text.

Not at all, I appreciate your comments because they are honest, and it's clear that you're responding to insurmountable weaknesses with the Meso model, which is increasingly presented as the only option. 

Like you've mentioned a few times, the Meso (or Heartland) evidence is not convincing enough. So I feel I'm left with three options (1) wait, (2) convince myself the geography doesn't matter, (3) look somewhere else. I've tried 1 and 2 for many years and they've brought me no satisfaction.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Kuhn explained that paradigm choice always depends on "which problems are more significant to have solved."  So John K. goes on about metallurgy, but makes no comment on a carefully described river, two distinct cultural centers in the correct time frames, the appearance of cement at the right time, volcanic eruption at generally the right times, and a narrow strip over wilderness extending from the east, all of which have the proper interlocking relationships.  If I had the metallurgy but not the others, which are and ought to be far larger and easier to find, and are not nearly as dependent on exactly where I dig and what I expect to see, (and much much more besides), I'd be more concerned.  If I hadn't read Gordon Thomasson's account of his time watching small scale metallurgy operations in Chad, I might have a different expectation than the one that produced an essay called "How Do You Lose a Steel Mill?"  And of course, when I worked in Pittsburgh fro 10 years, I'd walk along the Monongahela past locations where there used to be, just a few decades back, steel mills aplenty, and now... not much to see, besides a few historic displays near Station Square in whose absence, there would be nothing to see.  And if I hadn't read Mark Wright's discussions about just how little actual excavation has actually been done relative even to the sites that are known, and for that matter, where and with what goals in mind.

And there is also N. R. Hanson's comment that "All data is theory-laden," which makes all the difference between Addy's claim that there is no evidence and John Clark's claim that the evidence is there but has not been recognized for what it is.  I've had all too many experiences in looking for something in the fridge and overlooking it because I had a different form of packaging in mind.  And I've read Mormon's Codex and Brant's work, and other things, pointing to a great deal actually is there, and fits remarkably well in interdependent ways.  And I've listened to Dehlin and Coe ramble on about a what they see as a decisive lack of evidence for several specific items that the Book of Mormon does not actually mention.  That tells me that I should not take for granted the objectivity and expertise of an authority like Coe who actually has read the Book of Mormon.

It's all too easy for "straight-forward reading" to function as a naive "presentist" reading.  We don't know what difference a specific ancient context means until we try it out. The same wine that shatters one bottle may fit comfortably in another.  The seed that produces nothing on a rock or among weeds can produce 100 fold with nurture.

And there are kinds of evidence that come outside the purview of archeology, but which, are nonetheless, evidence of a kind.  The different kinds of things that come together in Benjamin's discourse, for example, are much easier to explain away if you don't mention or notice them.  Same for Thomasson and Hawkins' "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" and my "Nigh Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon."  I've seen way way too much that I need to have accounted for with more than "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Kuhn explained that paradigm choice always depends on "which problems are more significant to have solved."  So John K. goes on about metallurgy, but makes no comment on a carefully described river, two distinct cultural centers in the correct time frames, the appearance of cement at the right time, volcanic eruption at generally the right times, and a narrow strip over wilderness extending from the east, all of which have the proper interlocking relationships.  If I had the metallurgy but not the others, which are and ought to be far larger and easier to find, and are not nearly as dependent on exactly where I dig and what I expect to see, (and much much more besides), I'd be more concerned.  If I hadn't read Gordon Thomasson's account of his time watching small scale metallurgy operations in Chad, I might have a different expectation than the one that produced an essay called "How Do You Lose a Steel Mill?"  And of course, when I worked in Pittsburgh fro 10 years, I'd walk along the Monongahela past locations where there used to be, just a few decades back, steel mills aplenty, and now... not much to see, besides a few historic displays near Station Square in whose absence, there would be nothing to see.  And if I hadn't read Mark Wright's discussions about just how little actual excavation has actually been done relative even to the sites that are known, and for that matter, where and with what goals in mind.

And there is also N. R. Hanson's comment that "All data is theory-laden," which makes all the difference between Addy's claim that there is no evidence and John Clark's claim that the evidence is there but has not been recognized for what it is.  I've had all too many experiences in looking for something in the fridge and overlooking it because I had a different form of packaging in mind.  And I've read Mormon's Codex and Brant's work, and other things, pointing to a great deal actually is there, and fits remarkably well in interdependent ways.  And I've listened to Dehlin and Coe ramble on about a what they see as a decisive lack of evidence for several specific items that the Book of Mormon does not actually mention.  That tells me that I should not take for granted the objectivity and expertise of an authority like Coe who actually has read the Book of Mormon.

It's all too easy for "straight-forward reading" to function as a naive "presentist" reading.  We don't know what difference a specific ancient context means until we try it out. The same wine that shatters one bottle may fit comfortably in another.  The seed that produces nothing on a rock or among weeds can produce 100 fold with nurture.

And there are kinds of evidence that come outside the purview of archeology, but which, are nonetheless, evidence of a kind.  The different kinds of things that come together in Benjamin's discourse, for example, are much easier to explain away if you don't mention or notice them.  Same for Thomasson and Hawkins' "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" and my "Nigh Unto Death: NDE Research and the Book of Mormon."  I've seen way way too much that I need to have accounted for with more than "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

You and Robert seem to assume that because I don't find the evidence compelling, I think that those who do are fools or should be dismissed with a wave of the hand and "nothing to see here folks, move along." That is not the case. I have a great deal of respect for people like Brant Gardner and John Sorenson. I just don't happen to find their stuff compelling (and I've read their books). I readily admit that it would require some major shifts in my own paradigm to change my opinions regarding their work, but it doesn't mean I am ignoring compelling evidence because I'd rather "go on about metallurgy" (I commented on metallurgy because Robert brought up Olmec iron, not because it's the end-all and be-all of evidence). 

As for "straight reading" being presentist, that was very close to my point. But I suppose it's easier to dismiss me as just having an ax to grind and ignoring everything that doesn't support my bias against the Book of Mormon.

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Like every minimalist, you take the absence of a key item here or there as absolutely determinative, and pointedly ignore the preponderance of evidence, which is the approach I take in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Real historians know that no history can be matched exactly, that there will never be a one-for-one correspondence.

Enjoyed reading your paper. 

Most of the evidence you present there is not associated with a particular geography and would work just as well for any model. It made me curious to know if there is any substantial evidence for Meso that is unique to Meso, and can't be found in another model. You mentioned writing systems, but that is not unique to Mesoamerica. The Malay model supports not only a writing system but a writing system likely based on Aramaic with some possibilty of Egyptian influence.

The Malay/Burma region is also thick with legends of a lost script and/or a lost golden book that was taken west by a younger "white brother" who will return before the coming of a Messiah. One of the tribes that believes this legend claim to be descendents of Joseph through Manasseh, and have been officially recognized as Jews by the Israeli Knesset. They call themselves Zoram and live in a land they call Zoram. That's about as close to a one to one convergence that you can get. Right? Another tribe is named Kayin which is the Hebrew word for Kenite. They also claim to descend from Manasseh and worship a Supreme God who had a divine son who once visited them, and who will return after the white brother returns with the golden book. I've mentioned these before here. I'm honestly frustrated that apologists dismiss it as an interesting coincidence.

And before you might respond that we cannot consider the Malay model as legitimate because its not in the New World, remember its important not to "foreclose even the possiblity of finding anything before the search has even begun." 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

...a carefully described river, two distinct cultural centers in the correct time frames, the appearance of cement at the right time, volcanic eruption at generally the right times, and a narrow strip over wilderness extending from the east, all of which have the proper interlocking relationships.

These are also present in the Malay model, along with an earthquake around 2000 years ago on a faultline that runs from Ammonihah to Bountiful. Also add tribal legends describing a period of darkness around 35 AD when fires could not be lit and dead ancestors returned to visit the living. Elephants, silk, horses, chariots, walled cities, iron swords, towers, textual archives, temples named Mulek, rivers named Sidon, tribes called Zoram, legends of founders coming by boat from the west, golden plates etc. all in the right time period.

I can provide sources if you're interested.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

.............. may I just say I don't recognize the closed-minded defeatist you describe. We should always open to new data and new interpretation, but over more than 30 years of looking at the history and archaeology, including 4 years of formal study at BYU, I have not seen much of anything either on a minimalist or maximalist level that supports the "straight" reading of the Book of Mormon text, and if anything, what archaeologists are discovering continues to point away from that straight reading. Your characterizing of me as someone who can't distinguish between an Iroquois band and an Aymaran ayllu .........................

You misread my thought experiment on conjuring up a hemisphere populated only by northeastern woodland Amerinds, as a personal affront.  You again missed the point:  If and only if we had such an undifferentiated culture confronting BofM claims, then of course you would be correct,.  But that is not what we find.  Instead we find a material culture(s) which matches at numerous points the BofM cultures.  Any text can be analyzed in this way for its basis in fiction or fact, though you seem blind to that, and frankly uninterested in even considering that (as below).

You seem to think that is because I don't want to see it or "make absurd demands on archaeology that foreclose even the possibility of finding anything before the search has begun." Nonsense. By all means, keep looking, keep re-evaluating, but as I said, the value of the book has nothing to do with its historicity, and I think its impact on millions of people is a far more interesting and valuable subject than attempts to equate grinding ore with sophisticated metallurgy. Trying to find archaeological/historical evidence for the Book of Mormon is not a dead-end only because the evidence isn't there but because it's beside the point. 

Just so, you privilege one approach over all others simply because you find it "far more interesting and valuable."  Fine, but why then deny that any other approach may be valid?  Why would archeologists be at war with sociologists?  That is the real nonsense.  One need not deny the one in order to have the other, John.

As for the accusation that I expect an exact match with a "one-to-one correspondence," again, that is just silly hyperbole. Back when I was an undergrad, I had a class in ancient American history from George Addy, who said, "If you're in this class to learn about Nephites and Lamanites, you['re in the wrong place. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Nephites, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying." This was of course pretty shocking to me, and for the next 20 or so years I was as gung-ho in looking for anything that "correlated," strongly or otherwise, with the Book of Mormon cultures. I finally stopped hoping against hope and accepted that, although it was a bit of an overstatement, Dr. Addy was essentially right, and the evidence isn't there..............................................

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

The problem is that George M. Addy was neither anthropologist nor archeologist.  He taught history and maybe political science, so I don't know on what basis he was making his ridiculous claim (which you quote from memory, and admit was "a bit of an overstatement").  At the same time at BYU, Dr. Bruce Warren was teaching the exact opposite, and he was a qualified, experienced Mesoamerican archeologist.  The same for John L. Sorenson, who hired most of the anthropology faculty at BYU.  Are they to be declared liars by an upstart without any training in that field?  it really doesn't matter how "gung ho" you might be, pro or con, without the proper training and experience.  Indeed, BYU faculty member John E. Clark, who spent more time than any other Mormon doing hard archeology in Mesoamerica (directed the NWAF), clearly had a strongly opposite conclusion from that of Addy -- Clark, “Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: The Book of Mormon and Archaeology,” paper presented at the August 4, 2005, FAIR Conference in Sandy, Utah, available online at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html .