Rajah Manchou Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 Surprising find published this week suggests trading of metal items between Eurasia and North America well before Columbus. "It resembles a buckle used as part of a horse harness that would have been used in north-central China during the first six centuries before the Common Era.” Any thoughts as to why North Americans would be in the market for 6th century BC horse harnesses? http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/native-alaskans-may-have-been-trading-metals-with-asia-long-before-european-contact/ 2
Storm Rider Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 It is always surprising how often archaeology discovers new things about the ancient world. Yet, some of us always want to shut the door on what is known and what is not known about history. It will be interesting to see how much more is discovered in the future.
James Tunney Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: It is always surprising how often archaeology discovers new things about the ancient world. Yet, some of us always want to shut the door on what is known and what is not known about history. It will be interesting to see how much more is discovered in the future. The future is forever possible no matter how remote it seems now. Let me know when you find something concrete and I will listen.
ksfisher Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 “It resembles a buckle used as part of a horse harness..." That doesn't mean that the buckle was part of a horse harness, just that it resembles one. Also, if it was originally part of a horse harness the buckle could have been removed from the harness and put to another use. 2
Rajah Manchou Posted June 13, 2016 Author Posted June 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, ksfisher said: “It resembles a buckle used as part of a horse harness..." That doesn't mean that the buckle was part of a horse harness, just that it resembles one. Also, if it was originally part of a horse harness the buckle could have been removed from the harness and put to another use. Those are possibilities. Another possibilty mentioned in the paper is that the buckle was some sort of heirloom passed down through shamans and made its way to the New World. Hard to know, but also hard to explain without accepting transoceanic contact between 600 BC and Columbus. 1
Guest Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 3 hours ago, James Tunney said: The future is forever possible no matter how remote it seems now. Let me know when you find something concrete and I will listen. So that one item is where you draw the line? Or will the goal post be moved when that is found?
Guest Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 27 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Those are possibilities. Another possibilty mentioned in the paper is that the buckle was some sort of heirloom passed down through shamans and made its way to the New World. Hard to know, but also hard to explain without accepting transoceanic contact between 600 BC and Columbus. Moving the goal post even now, it won't matter no matter what is found by the unbelieving in any age, then they will call for science to prove God.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 13, 2016 Author Posted June 13, 2016 36 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Moving the goal post even now, it won't matter no matter what is found by the unbelieving in any age, then they will call for science to prove God. Never had a goalpost to move. I posted the link to discuss the possibility of transocenic trade between 600 BC and Columbus. Hardly an attempt to prove or disprove God. 1
Guest Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 45 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Never had a goalpost to move. I posted the link to discuss the possibility of transocenic trade between 600 BC and Columbus. Hardly an attempt to prove or disprove God. I was speaking to two posts, your comment about concrete, and then the other. So,if concrete is fould you will believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the LDS Church is God's restored Church to the earth? I am curious that you chose concrete as the hurdle where you would listen. Or are there many hurdles? I ask because there are many in all of Christiandom for those who seek proof, the least of which are horses and concrete, to prove the Church is true, or that God is real...to get there faith will have to fill the unknown.
Calm Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 I believe Ralph is a believer already, he just believes in a different location than is typically extrapolated.
phaedrus ut Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 This is at Cape Espenberg on the north west coast of Alaska at the Bering land bridge. If we are willing to include anywhere withing a 5000 mile radius of speculated Book of Mormon lands we can also include Western Africa, Spain, and Portugal. Phaedrus 2
James Tunney Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Pa Pa said: So that one item is where you draw the line? Or will the goal post be moved when that is found? The goal post is still where it is ... almost 100 yards away from you. But who knows with the new coach?
Storm Rider Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I am not quite sure what I said that was so difficult to understand, but it does seem to rankle some individuals. It appears that a buckle used in a horse harness in the ancient area of what we call China was traded to the ancient peoples of Alaska. I don't think it has anything necessarily to do with the Book of Mormon or not. However, those with an axe to grind, evidently and obviously, are determined to make sure that it has nothing to do with an actual horse since all critics know horses have never been upon this continent until much, much later. So we have a trade routes with ancient peoples is that such a problem?
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I don't find it all that surprising that there was trade across the strait of Alaska, which is, after all, only 51 miles wide. I'm trying to figure out why this is impressive or related to Book of Mormon history. Perhaps you can explain what you think this means. 2
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't find it all that surprising that there was trade across the strait of Alaska, which is, after all, only 51 miles wide. I'm trying to figure out why this is impressive or related to Book of Mormon history. Perhaps you can explain what you think this means. I think the logic might be that if horse harnesses were shipped across why not horses? This would put horses in the Americas in time for their stated times of being there in the Book of Mormon and then perhaps they died off again. Plausible but I am not sure how likely the explanation is.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: I think the logic might be that if horse harnesses were shipped across why not horses? This would put horses in the Americas in time for their stated times of being there in the Book of Mormon and then perhaps they died off again. Plausible but I am not sure how likely the explanation is. I have to admit I enjoy those who will take data from the entire North and South American continents to bolster Book of Mormon archaeology. In this odd world, dwarf mammoths on an island in the Bering strait are as relevant as Anasazi barley and Araucanian metallurgy in Chile. It all seems so ad hoc to me. 4
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, James Tunney said: The goal post is still where it is ... almost 100 yards away from you. But who knows with the new coach? You see us as opposites on the field?
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, jkwilliams said: I have to admit I enjoy those who will take data from the entire North and South American continents to bolster Book of Mormon archaeology. In this odd world, dwarf mammoths on an island in the Bering strait are as relevant as Anasazi barley and Araucanian metallurgy in Chile. It all seems so ad hoc to me. Horses seem like the kind of thing you would trade and/or steal a lot more so I could see them crossing a continent. I agree it is ad hoc but history itself looks very ad hoc when you start playing with the details. The culmination of lots of unlikely things. If you believe in the Book of Mormon to be true they seem more likely. If you think it unhistorical we do not have much that would convince the doubter. At least not yet. We can make it plausible but likely it is is up to the judgement of the individual evaluating it. On a more practical note I have never met anyone converted due to New World archaeology.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Horses seem like the kind of thing you would trade and/or steal a lot more so I could see them crossing a continent. I agree it is ad hoc but history itself looks very ad hoc when you start playing with the details. The culmination of lots of unlikely things. If you believe in the Book of Mormon to be true they seem more likely. If you think it unhistorical we do not have much that would convince the doubter. At least not yet. We can make it plausible but likely it is is up to the judgement of the individual evaluating it. On a more practical note I have never met anyone converted due to New World archaeology. Sure, history is messy, but you don't get a particularly accurate picture of anything by mixing and matching evidence spanning an entire hemisphere of the earth.
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have to admit I enjoy those who will take data from the entire North and South American continents to bolster Book of Mormon archaeology. In this odd world, dwarf mammoths on an island in the Bering strait are as relevant as Anasazi barley and Araucanian metallurgy in Chile. It all seems so ad hoc to me. Horses seem like the kind of thing you would trade and/or steal a lot more so I could see them crossing a continent. I agree it is ad hoc but history itself looks very ad hoc when you start playing with the details. The culmination of lots of unlikely things. If you believe in the Book of Mormon to be true they seem more likely. If you think it unhistorical we do not have much that would convince the doubter. At least not yet. We can make it plausible but likely it is is up to the judgement of the individual evaluating it. On a more practical note I have never met anyone converted due to New World archaeology.
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Any thoughts as to why North Americans would be in the market for 6th century BC horse harnesses? Really strange fetish? 3
James Tunney Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 21 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: You see us as opposites on the field? No and the current state of the truth claims honestly should leave the church well out of the stadium or if it's on the field, then it's a little league team against the Denver Broncos defense. However, I'm open to review any evidence as it comes along.
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Sure, history is messy, but you don't get a particularly accurate picture of anything by mixing and matching evidence spanning an entire hemisphere of the earth. Probably not but I am pretty convinced horses were there which makes me biased towards any theory explaining their presence. I really wish we could just find a gigantic horse graveyard in the right time period and call it a day. Keep digging archaeologists!
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Just now, The Nehor said: Probably not but I am pretty convinced horses were there which makes me biased towards any theory explaining their presence. I really wish we could just find a gigantic horse graveyard in the right time period and call it a day. Keep digging archaeologists! The problem isn't so much the lack of horse bones (well, that is a problem) but the lack of evidence that large animals were domesticated for use in transportation and work. I know, someone, somewhere could find a civilization that might possibly show signs of large animal domestication, but so far, there's nothing. I don't see how anyone could be convinced there were horses based on zero evidence, but I don't know.
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, James Tunney said: No and the current state of the truth claims honestly should leave the church well out of the stadium or if it's on the field, then it's a little league team against the Denver Broncos defense. However, I'm open to review any evidence as it comes along. The hopeless optimism within would like to believe that...but I can only try.
Recommended Posts