6th Century BC Horse Harness in North America

[ERayR]

10 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.

A statement like that doesn't seem too open.

[The Nehor]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

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.

I count the Book of Mormon as evidence but most people do not.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I once found myself in such an agreement. The person said that at least in the Bible they knew where everything was. I replied back that they didn't know where every city in the Bible is, and the places they know of does not mean that what was reported to have happened there, does not mean it did. Got called an anti-Christ. 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Pa Pa said:

I once found myself in such an agreement. The person said that at least in the Bible they knew where everything was. I replied back that they didn't know where every city in the Bible is, and the places they know of does not mean that what was reported to have happened there, does not mean it did. Got called an anti-Christ. 

Well, I never rule anything out, but I don't see any evidence of horses anywhere in the time period described, so I don't know how one can be convinced of something with no evidence. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I never rule anything out, but I don't see any evidence of horses anywhere in the time period described, so I don't know how one can be convinced of something with no evidence. 

Other than a few key verses, nothing in the Book of Ether makes any sense to me. Horses, Elephants and so forth. It seems as it was written for another time and in another place and found its way into the Book of Mormon. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I never rule anything out, but I don't see any evidence of horses anywhere in the time period described, so I don't know how one can be convinced of something with no evidence. 

John my friend...send me a PM about how it was in the Provo City Center...I was to hear all about it. 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

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 

Don't forget East Asia.

I think evidence (such as this buckle and all genetic, linguistic and archeological data to date) points to the Book of Mormon happening in Asia and then the "Lamanites" being scattered to the New World to be among the ancestors of the Native Americans.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

John my friend...send me a PM about how it was in the Provo City Center...I was to hear all about it. 

Just sent you a message. Short answer: they've really done a nice job restoring the building. One thing you can say about the church is that they rarely do anything half-way.

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours 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.

Well there are BOM models that place events in both the North and South American continents. I've even heard one for the Kamchatka Peninsula where the buckle discussed likely originated. There is no consensus where the BOM was set so a conversation about 6th century BC metal artifacts anywhere in the New World is relevant because it serves as another data point to help pinpoint the most likely location, if there is even a real world location at all. A metal buckle in North America can be used to support a North American model. Same goes for barley in Arizona. Metallurgy in Chile is a hit for the Chile model. Writing systems, Mesoamerica etc.

Its a mess, but I guess the hope is that one day all the cumulative evidence (or lack of evidence) will inform decisions. The way I see it, the evidence is overwhelming that all populations in the New World originated from Asia. If the Book of Mormon is a genuine record of the original inhabitants of the Americas and the source from whence they sprang, we should try to get more comfortable with all the evidence that points to Asia as the source of Native American civilization. 

On a sidenote (just because this might be more relevant to your perspective on BOM historicity) Solomon Spaulding's daughter claimed that Manuscript Story placed the Lehites for a long time in Asia before they crossed the Bearing Strait. So if we're going to be thorough and honest we should also consider that angle. Maybe the Book of Mormon was written by a 19th century author who was looking at a map of the Malay Peninsula as he wrote about elephants, silk, horses, chariots and other items that don't fit the New World. Given the BOM's unusual fit with SE Asian geography and material culture I wouldn't rule it out. It also fits the popular theory going around in the 1810s and 20s that America was populated by fair-skinned Tartars from across the Bering Strait who ended up in the north and darker skinned Malays who settled in the south. According to Samuel Mitchill (the same guy that Martin Harris visited) the Tartars and Malays fought a great battle in upstate New York. Its curious.

I think all evidence should be considered fairly and equally regardless of where it leads us. I lean towards an explanation that accepts the Book of Mormon as history, but I'm open to anything until the truth is known.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Well there are BOM models that place events in both the North and South American continents. I've even heard one for the Kamchatka Peninsula where the buckle discussed likely originated. There is no consensus where the BOM was set so a conversation about 6th century BC metal artifacts anywhere in the New World is relevant because it serves as another data point to help pinpoint the most likely location, if there is even a real world location at all. A metal buckle in North America can be used to support a North American model. Same goes for barley in Arizona. Metallurgy in Chile is a hit for the Chile model. Writing systems, Mesoamerica etc.

Its a mess, but I guess the hope is that one day all the cumulative evidence (or lack of evidence) will inform decisions. The way I see it, the evidence is overwhelming that all populations in the New World originated from Asia. So if the Book of Mormon is a genuine record of the original inhabitants of the Americas and the source from whence they sprang, we should try to get more comfortable with all the evidence that points to Asia as the source of Native American civilization. 

On a sidenote (just because this might be more relevant to your perspective on BOM historicity) Solomon Spaulding's daughter claimed that Manuscript Lost placed the Lehites for a long time in Asia before they crossed the Bearing Strait. So if we're going to be thorough and honest we should also consider that angle. Maybe the Book of Mormon was written by a 19th century author who was looking at a map of the Malay Peninsula as he wrote about elephants, silk, horses, chariots and other items that don't fit the New World. Given the BOM's unusual fit with SE Asian geography and material culture. It also fits the popular theory going around in the 1810s and 20s that America was populated by fair-skinned Tartars from across the Bering Strait who ended up in the north and darker skinned Malays who settled in the south. According to Samuel Mitchill (the same guy that Martin Harris visited) the Tartars and Malays fought a great battle in upstate New York. Its curious.

I think all evidence should be considered fairly and equally regardless of where it leads us. I lean towards an explanation that accepts the Book of Mormon as history, but I'm open to anything until the truth is known.

Interesting stuff. I've never been a Spaulding proponent, but some are. If I were a believer, I would find the Asia theory problematic for the simple reason that prophets, seers, and revelators have definitively placed the setting in the Americas. As it stands, the Book of Mormon makes the most sense as a product of 19th-century America: KJV-based Protestantism/Restorationism mingled with moundbuilder mythology. Obviously, I'm in the minority here. 

But by all means, it is important to evaluate all evidence fairly and equally.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours 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.

It may be a reaction to the absolute declarations so often made that there is nothing in the New World, as though there is a wall of some sort between the New and Old World.  It is helpful sometimes to face anthropological reality, even if it doesn't square with one's apriori assumptions.  Good examples are the automatic and false claims that there was no barley in the New World, that there were no regular mammoths or mastodons in the New World, that there were no horses in the New World, that there was no metallurgy in the New World, etc.  Once we get past the knee jerk denials, then we can begin discussing details, but just getting past the ad hoc yokelization of such issues is very difficult.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

This is exactly what I am getting at, John.  Each of these statements is false, and yet they continue to be bandied about as though the last word in professional anthropology.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is exactly what I am getting at, John.  Each of these statements is false, and yet they continue to be bandied about as though the last word in professional anthropology.

Well, I do enjoy bandying things about. I have not seen any credible evidence of horses--bones or otherwise--in the Americas during the Book of Mormon times. The closest I can think of is the fossilized horse teeth found in a cenote. And I am unaware of any use of large domesticated beasts of burden other than the llama in the Andes.

But I am often wrong.  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Just sent you a message. Short answer: they've really done a nice job restoring the building. One thing you can say about the church is that they rarely do anything half-way.

Amen, when we were in Nauvoo, even the bathrooms were as clean as the Temple. It is a marvel that we have a Church were the person doing the cleaning see it as a calling, as th person standing at the largest pulpit. 

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I count the Book of Mormon as evidence but most people do not.

I know you do. 

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I do enjoy bandying things about. I have not seen any credible evidence of horses--bones or otherwise--in the Americas during the Book of Mormon times. The closest I can think of is the fossilized horse teeth found in a cenote. And I am unaware of any use of large domesticated beasts of burden other than the llama in the Andes.

But I am often wrong.  

I'm glad that you finally got around to mentioning the llamas.  You had previously said:

Quote

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.  

Which was a bridge too far in each case.  Now your latest statement appropriately backpedals to the Book of Mormon period, which was around 3,000 BC to 400 AD.

Within that long era, the BofM does not make undifferentiated claims.  Elephants are mentioned early, not late, and it is very likely that some were still around in the Jaredite period.  There is no reason why the horse might not have been around in the Americas during the BofM period, both early and late.  We have discussed the evidence for both species before on this board, and fossilized horse teeth in a Yucatec cenote are of no interest in that regard.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm glad that you finally got around to mentioning the llamas.  You had previously said:

Which was a bridge too far in each case.  Now your latest statement appropriately backpedals to the Book of Mormon period, which was around 3,000 BC to 400 AD.

Within that long era, the BofM does not make undifferentiated claims.  Elephants are mentioned early, not late, and it is very likely that some were still around in the Jaredite period.  There is no reason why the horse might not have been around in the Americas during the BofM period, both early and late.  We have discussed the evidence for both species before on this board, and fossilized horse teeth in a Yucatec cenote are of no interest in that regard.

Sorry for my lack of precision. I haven't seen any credible evidence of horses in the Book of Mormon period, so I'm a bit surprised to hear you say such has been discussed.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Sorry for my lack of precision. I haven't seen any credible evidence of horses in the Book of Mormon period, so I'm a bit surprised to hear you say such has been discussed.

Yeh, we discussed it here on this board, with full citations.  Not only do we have horse bones in evidence in a variety of places in North America during the BofM period, we also have plenty of evidence from paleontologists that both horse and mammoth likely existed much longer in the Americas than previously thought (that is, did not become extinct as early as usually thought).  I thought at that time that you also mentioned the dwarf mammoths on Wrangle Island, but it may have been someone else.  In any case, the evidence I speak of has nothing to do with dwarf mammoths on any island somewhere (like the dwarf elephants on Flores).

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, we discussed it here on this board, with full citations.  Not only do we have horse bones in evidence in a variety of places in North America during the BofM period, we also have plenty of evidence from paleontologists that both horse and mammoth likely existed much longer in the Americas than previously thought (that is, did not become extinct as early as usually thought).  I thought at that time that you also mentioned the dwarf mammoths on Wrangle Island, but it may have been someone else.  In any case, the evidence I speak of has nothing to do with dwarf mammoths on any island somewhere (like the dwarf elephants on Flores).

I did mention the dwarf mammoths of Wrangel, but I am blissfully unaware of any evidence of New World horse remains from Book of Mormon times. Perhaps you can point me to the thread where it was discussed. 

[jkwilliams]

Robert,

I seem to recall a long discussion a while back on supposed dating of horse remains to a point not that far removed from the Jaredite timeline, as discussed in a FAIR post. As I remember it, the dates were pulled from an article in which the authors had specifically excluded the recent dates because the samples scored very low on their scale of reliability. I thought the FAIR post was misleading at best and dishonest at worst, so I hope you aren't referring to that.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Robert,

I seem to recall a long discussion a while back on supposed dating of horse remains to a point not that far removed from the Jaredite timeline, as discussed in a FAIR post. As I remember it, the dates were pulled from an article in which the authors had specifically excluded the recent dates because the samples scored very low on their scale of reliability. I thought the FAIR post was misleading at best and dishonest at worst, so I hope you aren't referring to that.

I'm not sure what the FAIR post may have included, John, I so seldom read anything over there, but perhaps it was referred to here in coverage of the same article.  Some of the scientific data (horse and mammoth sedDNA) is more heuristic than specific anyhow, in that it is only indicative of plausibility in going beyond the specific limits of the data.  I am thinking of “Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm , which is based on James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full .

Even though he found no equus bones from Mesoamerica of the period 14,700 BC - 1,650 AD., see BYU physicist Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient America, 16 #95 (June 2012):2-3, online at http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/index.php?i=115319&m=&l=&p=2&pre=&ver=swf ,
–equus in Pratt Cave (near El Paso), Texas, from ca. 6,020 - 5,890 BC.
–equus in Wolf Spider Cave, Colorado, from 1,260 - 1,400 AD
–equus in Horsethief Cave, Wyoming, ca. 1,100 BC
–equus bone in Wyoming, ca. 1,426 - 1,481 AD
–equus bones in Canada, from 900 BC (Sask, Ridell I-8581), and 1,100 AD (Ontario, Hemlock Park Farm)
The DNA of these samples needs to be tested to determine whether they are in any way related to horses brought over by the Spanish (falsifiability, you know).
 

[canard78]

21 hours 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.

Meanwhile, the text of the Book of Mormon apparently demands a limited geography of a few hundred miles. 

I was discussing evidences of the BoM with a relative recently and they were making the case for the BoM based evidences like those in Mormons Codex etc. 

I asked the following questions:

- If you were to start from the other end of the process...  the archaeology, not the BoM, is there any evidence at all that would lead someone to believe that Hebrews lived in a great population in Mesoamerica?

- Anything that suggests that these Hebrews converted to Christianity. 

- Anything to lead someone to independently conclude that these Hebrews are among the ancestors of today's native Americans. 

I suggested that there is nothing concrete that leads an independent scholar to conclude any of the above. 

The only source for that perspective is based first on the Book of Mormon belief and only later based on finding parallels and patterns that make the BoM viable. 

Even the strongest evidences from Sorenson and others only support the potential credibility of the text of the book. There is nothing that leads to the conclusion from the other direction. 

[omni]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, we discussed it here on this board, with full citations.  Not only do we have horse bones in evidence in a variety of places in North America during the BofM period, we also have plenty of evidence from paleontologists that both horse and mammoth likely existed much longer in the Americas than previously thought (that is, did not become extinct as early as usually thought).  I thought at that time that you also mentioned the dwarf mammoths on Wrangle Island, but it may have been someone else.  In any case, the evidence I speak of has nothing to do with dwarf mammoths on any island somewhere (like the dwarf elephants on Flores).

Lack of horse bones from the appropriate time period and location is one thing, but how do you explain the lack of art depicting such a large and useful mammal?

[theplains]

On 13/06/2016 at 9:14 AM, 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.  

Now you have to show a Nephite/Lamanite connection instead of some other race.

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, omni said:

Lack of horse bones from the appropriate time period and location is one thing, but how do you explain the lack of art depicting such a large and useful mammal?

Good point, although most of the art we do have comes from the post-Book of Mormon Classic Maya period and later.  Moreover, the Maya thought that Spanish horses looked somewhat like deer -- so they called the Spanish horses "deer."  Thus, by that time, they didn't even have a word for "horse."  The BofM period is just not as well-known as these later periods, though that may change with future excavations.