The exact location of the Waters of Ripliancum

[sam]

On August 26, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Brant Gardner said:

Sam, I disagree. I have not seen any archaeologist discuss cement for the Hopewell. You might find some hard substances on the mounds, but that was not cement, and it is not cement used for houses. Not even the hard earth mixture was known for housing. Saying that it was cement and therefore fits the Book of Mormon might sound right, but it is the wrong substance, used incorrectly, and in the wrong place. Remember, it has to be north of Nephite lands (not necessarily in them) and a place devoid of trees. That doesn't fit the Hopewell, who are part of what are termed the Woodland cultures.

You are correct that the Hopewell made roads. They were not the only ones, but that is correct. However, you do have a problem with horses. They did go extinct, but they were extinct long before the date where you accept dating. If you allow Pleistocene horses in North America, then you accept them everywhere and no one has a "horse" problem. Paleontologists know that there were horses in the America. They appear to have been food sources and were hunted to extinction--but long before the Book of Mormon started (including the Jaredites).

Here is an article that describes the use of wattle and daub for the use of building houses an excellent example of the building of houses using cement in my opinion. 

What I love about this article is it states when the civilization disappeared an exact match for the end of the Nephites. 

Also I want to add that the Book of Mormon never states that they made buildings out of stone. Their primary building material was wood not stone unlike the stone buildings found in Central America.

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hopewell/who_were_hopewell.html

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, sam said:

The Hopewell and Native Americans did use a cement like building material called wattle and daub.

If you go to the section under fortifications you will see the use of wattle and daub.

https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/

you will see a fortification amazingly similar how fortification are described in the Book of Mormon. This particular fortification dates after the Book of Mormon but this is how the Hopewell built their fortifications.

 

 

"It stands 12′ high and is made of wooden posts set 4 feet deep into a narrow trench. The posts are covered with wattle and daub, a loose weaving of sticks covered with a mud-and-grass plaster."

I'm assuming this is what you are refering to.  The main building material here seems to be wood, in the form of either posts or sticks. 

Heleman 3, however, speaks about houses being made from cement because of the scarcity of timber.  For the Hopewell to match this description one would need to show Hopewell house made of cement being built in a land that had a demonstratable lack of timber.  I do not think that the Hopewell match this description in either regard.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

"Retract your statement" oh my! Getting huffy are we?

 

You're making some assumptions here.

I don't think it's unresonable to ask for a retraction when the requested CFR had gone unanswered for over.

Edited September 5, 2016 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

I'm not sure how this relates to the question of Nephite cement homes and Hopewell wattle and daub.  Perhaps you could explain further.

[sam]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"It stands 12′ high and is made of wooden posts set 4 feet deep into a narrow trench. The posts are covered with wattle and daub, a loose weaving of sticks covered with a mud-and-grass plaster."

I'm assuming this is what you are refering to.  The main building material here seems to be wood, in the form of either posts or sticks. 

Heleman 3, however, speaks about houses being made from cement because of the scarcity of timber.  For the Hopewell to match this description one would need to show Hopewell house made of cement being built in a land that had a demonstratable lack of timber.  I do not think that the Hopewell match this description in either regard.

Here's a link that states that some Hopewell homes were made of wattle daub.

Edited September 5, 2016 by sam
Grammer

[sam]

2 minutes ago, sam said:

Here's a link that states that some Hopewell homes were made of wattle daub.

Here's the link

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hopewell/who_were_hopewell.html

[sam]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"It stands 12′ high and is made of wooden posts set 4 feet deep into a narrow trench. The posts are covered with wattle and daub, a loose weaving of sticks covered with a mud-and-grass plaster."

I'm assuming this is what you are refering to.  The main building material here seems to be wood, in the form of either posts or sticks. 

Heleman 3, however, speaks about houses being made from cement because of the scarcity of timber.  For the Hopewell to match this description one would need to show Hopewell house made of cement being built in a land that had a demonstratable lack of timber.  I do not think that the Hopewell match this description in either regard.

Wood was the primary building material the Book of Mormon never states that stones were used to build their housing structures or buildings.

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, sam said:

Wood was the primary building material the Book of Mormon never states that stones were used to build their housing structures or buildings.

Helaman 3 states that the homes in the land northward that Nephites were migrating to were made from cement because of the scarcity of timber.  It never mentions stone as a building material, and neither have I.

[Brant Gardner]

On 9/4/2016 at 8:09 PM, sam said:

Here is an article that describes the use of wattle and daub for the use of building houses an excellent example of the building of houses using cement in my opinion. 

As has been noted, there are two problems here. The first is that we have to redefine cement as mud. I suppose that is possible, but the more damaging is that the cement is used because there are no trees. The "wattle" is wood from trees. This is a complete mismatch for the Book of Mormon. According to this particular criterion, the Hopewell couldn't be the land northward that Helaman referred to.

Quote

What I love about this article is it states when the civilization disappeared an exact match for the end of the Nephites. 

I clearly have a different definition for "exact match." I don't see anything in that article that fits the Book of Mormon Nephites. Here is what it says about the Hopewell (and not just the terminal Hopewell, but the generic Hopewell from any time period:

Quote

 

Hopewell settlements were small villages or hamlets of a few rectangular homes made of posts with wattle and daub walls and thatched roofs. The people raised crops including sunflower, squash, goosefoot, maygrass, and other plants with oily or starchy seeds. They also gathered wild plants, hunted deer and other large and small game, and fished. 

 

Note that they lived in "small villages or hamlets." Archaeologists know quite a bit about such settlement sites. They do not, ever, produce the complex political systems we see in the Book of Mormon. They cannot sustain the population sizes listed in the Book of Mormon. When you look at their agriculture, it is not in foodstuffs that supply sufficient calories to by itself. Therefore, "they also gathered wild plants, hunted deer and other large and small game, and fished."

That does not fit the Book of Mormon description. While I agree with what article says about he Hopewell, if you actually read what it says, it says that the Hopewell do not match the Nephites at all.

Quote

Also I want to add that the Book of Mormon never states that they made buildings out of stone. Their primary building material was wood not stone unlike the stone buildings found in Central America.

You are correct that it doesn't say that they made buildings of stone. You are incorrect that therefore their primary building material was wood. We know that they worked wood, and every culture used wood. Mesoamerican home dwellings were typically wood, just as were North American. Not mentioning stone doesn't meant that they didn't use it. It just means that it wasn't mentioned. They simply don't mention much about building materials after Nephi and then later in Helaman when the reason for talking about them was to show an unusual feature of the land northward.

If you read modern archaeologists, you will not find any evidence that even suggests that the Hopewell are similar to the Nephites. Absolutely the only thing I can think of is that they happen to have the right beginning and ending dates. Once upon a time, that very same argument was used to correlate the Maya and the Nephites. Archaeology showed that dating to be incorrect, and the early dating of the Hopewell is currently in question because some believe that there wasn't a division between Adena and Hopewell, but that Hopewell is simply late Adena. That blows up the dating hypothesis--and there is nothing else. There isn't population size. There isn't political complexity. The geography only fits when you are very flexible in your definitions (and don't try to fit geography to the actions of the text). There is simply nothing that makes the Hopewell and the Nephites similar in any meaningful way.

 

[sam]

15 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

As has been noted, there are two problems here. The first is that we have to redefine cement as mud. I suppose that is possible, but the more damaging is that the cement is used because there are no trees. The "wattle" is wood from trees. This is a complete mismatch for the Book of Mormon. According to this particular criterion, the Hopewell couldn't be the land northward that Helaman referred to.

I clearly have a different definition for "exact match." I don't see anything in that article that fits the Book of Mormon Nephites. Here is what it says about the Hopewell (and not just the terminal Hopewell, but the generic Hopewell from any time period:

Note that they lived in "small villages or hamlets." Archaeologists know quite a bit about such settlement sites. They do not, ever, produce the complex political systems we see in the Book of Mormon. They cannot sustain the population sizes listed in the Book of Mormon. When you look at their agriculture, it is not in foodstuffs that supply sufficient calories to by itself. Therefore, "they also gathered wild plants, hunted deer and other large and small game, and fished."

That does not fit the Book of Mormon description. While I agree with what article says about he Hopewell, if you actually read what it says, it says that the Hopewell do not match the Nephites at all.

You are correct that it doesn't say that they made buildings of stone. You are incorrect that therefore their primary building material was wood. We know that they worked wood, and every culture used wood. Mesoamerican home dwellings were typically wood, just as were North American. Not mentioning stone doesn't meant that they didn't use it. It just means that it wasn't mentioned. They simply don't mention much about building materials after Nephi and then later in Helaman when the reason for talking about them was to show an unusual feature of the land northward.

If you read modern archaeologists, you will not find any evidence that even suggests that the Hopewell are similar to the Nephites. Absolutely the only thing I can think of is that they happen to have the right beginning and ending dates. Once upon a time, that very same argument was used to correlate the Maya and the Nephites. Archaeology showed that dating to be incorrect, and the early dating of the Hopewell is currently in question because some believe that there wasn't a division between Adena and Hopewell, but that Hopewell is simply late Adena. That blows up the dating hypothesis--and there is nothing else. There isn't population size. There isn't political complexity. The geography only fits when you are very flexible in your definitions (and don't try to fit geography to the actions of the text). There is simply nothing that makes the Hopewell and the Nephites similar in any meaningful way.

 

 

The Book of Mormon does not state there were no trees in the land northward. Helaman 3:7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

The Book of Mormon except when there was a lack of it always used wood/timber to make their structures to include temples. When there was a lack of timber to build with they used cement. (daub and wattle). Timber was such an important item for their structures that timber was shipped to the land Northward to make up for the short supply and as stated in verse 11 cities were built of wood in the land northward.

Helaman 3

10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping

11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

Daub and Wattle does not have to be from timber it can be any composite material from river cane to vines to woven mats.

Meso American apologist are the most creative when it comes to changing the meaning of words. If I’m not mistaken you believe there are two Hill Cumorahs, rusted iron swords in the Book of Mormon are wood clubs with obsidian and tapirs are actually horses etc. Daub and wattle comparatively is a excellent fit.

What I have read about the Hopewell disagrees with the conclusions you have made the Hopewell were advanced with large cities but also lived in villages and hamlets as described in Alma they extended from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico with roads in between.

The Book of Mormon states is that the Nephites not only lived in large cities but some also lived in outlying areas with their tents and flocks another significant match.

Alma 2:24-26

24 Behold, we followed the camp of the Amlicites, and to our great astonishment, in the land of Minon, above the land of Zarahemla, in the course of the land of Nephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites; and behold, the Amlicites have joined them;

25 And they are upon our brethren in that land; and they are fleeing before them with their flocks, and their wives, and their children, towards our city; and except we make haste they obtain possession of our city, and our fathers, and our wives, and our children be slain.

26 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi took their tents, and departed out of the valley of Gideon towards their city, which was the city of Zarahemla.

“The monumental architecture and artifacts of the Hopewell Culture reflect a pinnacle of achievement in the fields of art, astronomy, mathematics and engineering, the likes of which was seldom seen again in eastern North America.”

“Two thousand years ago, people of an advanced culture gathered here (Chillicothe) to
conduct religious rituals and ceremonies related to their society.”

https://www.nps.gov/hocu/planyourvisit/upload/HMG-Site-Bulletin-2010-NON-EN.pdf

I’m not sure what you are trying to point out about Hopewell agriculture and hunting but that also fits the Book of Mormon description of how they subsisted.

Im going to vent a little I’m personally get tired of some the pot shots from some meso American apologist. The most disturbing part of all this is they throw stones from a glass house.

If meso American apologist have a better option than the Hopewell civilization, then name it. It’s easy to throw pot shots when you do not have to defend anything. Name a civilization in central or south American and we can do a one on one comparison between the Hopewell and the central or south American civilization of your choosing. We can see which one best fits the Book of Mormon artifact ,cultural, location, timeline, structures,  dna  etc. Otherwise I see nothing more than drive by potshots.  

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, sam said:

 

 

If meso American apologist have a better option than the Hopewell civilization, then name it. It’s easy to throw pot shots when you do not have to defend anything. Name a civilization in central or south American and we can do a one on one comparison between the Hopewell and the central or south American civilization of your choosing. We can see which one best fits the Book of Mormon artifact ,cultural, location, timeline, structures,  dna  etc. Otherwise I see nothing more than drive by potshots.  

In your quest for a comparison you could start with the following books

https://smile.amazon.com/Ancient-American-Setting-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B0049U46K2/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473192950&sr=1-3&keywords=john+l+sorenson#nav-subnav

https://smile.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA/ref=pd_sim_351_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ARBA4HJ5JPMXSWWB3KR6#nav-subnav

https://smile.amazon.com/Traditions-Fathers-Book-Mormon-History/dp/1589586654/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473193177&sr=1-1&keywords=brant+gardner

There are also 40 years worth of articles available on the internet to help you understand the Mesoamerican setting.

[sam]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In your quest for a comparison you could start with the following books

https://smile.amazon.com/Ancient-American-Setting-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B0049U46K2/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473192950&sr=1-3&keywords=john+l+sorenson#nav-subnav

https://smile.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA/ref=pd_sim_351_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ARBA4HJ5JPMXSWWB3KR6#nav-subnav

https://smile.amazon.com/Traditions-Fathers-Book-Mormon-History/dp/1589586654/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473193177&sr=1-1&keywords=brant+gardner

There are also 40 years worth of articles available on the internet to help you understand the Mesoamerican setting.

That's fine since you probably have gone through these books name the civilization that is referenced as the Nephites and we can start a one on one comparison.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, sam said:

That's fine since you probably have gone through these books name the civilization that is referenced as the Nephites and we can start a one on one comparison.

I think it would be a lot more meaningful to you and helpful to the conversation if you did.

[sam]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I think it would be a lot more meaningful to you and helpful to the conversation if you did.

No it would be more meaningful if we had a starting point so feel free to mention a civilization in central and or south American that is referenced as the Nephites so we can begin this all important dialogue.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, sam said:

No it would be more meaningful if we had a starting point so feel free to mention a civilization in central and or south American that is referenced as the Nephites so we can begin this all important dialogue.

Perhaps you didn't mean the bolded words in the way I'm taking them.  They would seem to come off in a very condescending way.  If that's true then the conversation is over.  If I'm reading things into your words that are not intended then I wish to stand corrected.

[sam]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps you didn't mean the bolded words in the way I'm taking them.  They would seem to come off in a very condescending way.  If that's true then the conversation is over.  If I'm reading things into your words that are not intended then I wish to stand corrected.

This was in no way meant to be condescending at all its a honest and sincere question.

[phaedrus ut]

If you are trying to locate the waters of ripliancum you might end up Shiz creek without a paddle. 

[sam]

12 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

If you are trying to locate the waters of ripliancum you might end up Shiz creek without a paddle. 

I think I know where that is located.

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, sam said:

 The Book of Mormon does not state there were no trees in the land northward. Helaman 3:7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

We are both reading the very same verse, but seeing it very differently. When I read the "therefore" that you bolded, it tells me that they build houses out of cement because "there being but little timber." It is true that you might use something else rather than wood for the wattle, but now you are going beyond the evidence. There are three problems: 1) the Hopewell did use wood, 2) there are lots of forests in that region in Book of Mormon times, 3) Helaman places this north of Nephite lands--but there were still forests (just even fewer people).

Quote

What I have read about the Hopewell disagrees with the conclusions you have made the Hopewell were advanced with large cities but also lived in villages and hamlets as described in Alma they extended from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico with roads in between.

I don't know what you have read, so I can't comment on sources I don't know about. However, I have read several modern archaeologists on the topic--and visited reputable web sites. They are consistent in indicating that there were smaller villages and hamlets. They did not have large cities. There is no evidence of king-level societies (required for pre-Alma Nephites and all Lamanites). The site you sent me to said that very thing. If you have a modern archaeologist who supports the idea that there were advanced large cities among the Hopewell, please provide them (and I agree that Cohokia was large and sophisticated--but it isn't Hopewell and is later than the Book of Mormon).

Quote

The Book of Mormon states is that the Nephites not only lived in large cities but some also lived in outlying areas with their tents and flocks another significant match.

We agree. You will find it easy to find small villages and hamlets no matter where you place the Book of Mormon on the map--and almost whenever you place it there. Small villages isn't the problem. It is the absence of the critical characteristics that define both Nephite and Lamanite culture.

Quote

“Two thousand years ago, people of an advanced culture gathered here (Chillicothe) to
conduct religious rituals and ceremonies related to their society.”

I have no problem with that statement. It is pretty generic. You could use that to related to the "advanced culture" of the Book of Mormon because they were both advanced--but that still doesn't mean that we have the right match. The Hopewell are certainly the best/only possible North American match, but the details of the culture don't work. We don't have the level of population, and we don't have anything that fits the Jaredite geography (though the Adena are possible for the timeline).

Quote

I’m not sure what you are trying to point out about Hopewell agriculture and hunting but that also fits the Book of Mormon description of how they subsisted.

Yes there was agriculture. That isn't the issue. It is the type of agriculture and the available calories from agriculture. The Hopewell didn't have an agriculture sufficient to support the caloric needs of larger populations. They had to supplement their calories through hunting and gathering (notice that the Nephites think that shows how "uncivilized" the Lamanites are--it was not correct, but the sentiment against hunting and gathering is clear). That type of subsistence cannot sustain large populations. Therefore, not only do the sites support only villages and hamlets, the nature of their incipient agriculture confirms that they couldn't grow as large as Book of Mormon populations did.

Quote

Im going to vent a little I’m personally get tired of some the pot shots from some meso American apologist. The most disturbing part of all this is they throw stones from a glass house.

I'm sorry you feel the need to vent--but we should get some things clear. While I certainly support a Mesoamerican location, I haven't said anything about it. What I am saying is that there is no archaeological evidence that allows us to tie the Hopewell to the Nephites. I am using archaeological data to do that, not a preference for Mesoamerica. The assertion that the Mesoamerican position consists of a glass house is certainly one that could be debated--but we haven't yet done that. As a preview, should you be interested, every one of the archaeological problems with the Hopewell work easily in the Mesoamerican geography. I can accept good archaeology.

Quote

If meso American apologist have a better option than the Hopewell civilization, then name it.

None of the current theorist with whom I am acquainted would accept a simple one to one "the Nephites were the X." That is certainly incorrect--the text won't let us do that. However, From the city of Nephi times to the exodus from the land of Nephi, Nephites participated in Maya culture. In Zarahemla, it depends upon whose Mesoamerican geography you accept. Some keep the Nephites among the Maya. I see them in Zoquean culture (I think it fits the textual requirements much better).

Quote

It’s easy to throw pot shots when you do not have to defend anything. Name a civilization in central or south American and we can do a one on one comparison between the Hopewell and the central or south American civilization of your choosing. We can see which one best fits the Book of Mormon artifact ,cultural, location, timeline, structures,  dna  etc. Otherwise I see nothing more than drive by potshots.  

Please don't assume that I don't defend anything. I have. There are lots of articles available for free, and a book or two in which I have laid out my defense. As for "drive-by," I am more than willing to discuss sound archaeology, careful geography, and attention to cultural details. I have read several things about the hypothesis you support and have made my independent evaluation based upon what I have read (including a couple of books by Meldrum, one by Meldrum and Potter, two by Neville, one by Coon). Might I ask what you have read about the Mesoamerican geographical hypothesis?

 

 

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, sam said:

That's fine since you probably have gone through these books name the civilization that is referenced as the Nephites and we can start a one on one comparison.

Sam, are you really telling us that you have formed adamant opinions without even reading the relevant literature? In that case, might you please tell us what books you are using as your sources? I have seen arguments that I first saw in Meldrum's works, but I can't tell if you have read anyone else? Wayne May? Jonathan Neville? Vincent Coon? Vaughn Hansen?

[sam]

Just now, Brant Gardner said:

Sam, are you really telling us that you have formed adamant opinions without even reading the relevant literature? In that case, might you please tell us what books you are using as your sources? I have seen arguments that I first saw in Meldrum's works, but I can't tell if you have read anyone else? Wayne May? Jonathan Neville? Vincent Coon? Vaughn Hansen?

Brant I have a question. Is there any civilization in South or Central America considered to be the Nephites?

[Brant Gardner]

Just now, sam said:

Brant I have a question. Is there any civilization in South or Central America considered to be the Nephites?

The answer I gave earlier:

None of the current theorist with whom I am acquainted would accept a simple one to one "the Nephites were the X." That is certainly incorrect--the text won't let us do that. However, From the city of Nephi times to the exodus from the land of Nephi, Nephites participated in Maya culture. In Zarahemla, it depends upon whose Mesoamerican geography you accept. Some keep the Nephites among the Maya. I see them in Zoquean culture (I think it fits the textual requirements much better).

[sam]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

The answer I gave earlier:

None of the current theorist with whom I am acquainted would accept a simple one to one "the Nephites were the X." That is certainly incorrect--the text won't let us do that. However, From the city of Nephi times to the exodus from the land of Nephi, Nephites participated in Maya culture. In Zarahemla, it depends upon whose Mesoamerican geography you accept. Some keep the Nephites among the Maya. I see them in Zoquean culture (I think it fits the textual requirements much better).

Are there any archeologist besides John Sorenson that would consider the Mayan or the Zoquean culture to be the Nephites. I noticed they built a lot with stone not timber is that a problem.

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, sam said:

Are there any archeologist besides John Sorenson that would consider the Mayan or the Zoquean culture to be the Nephites. I noticed they built a lot with stone not timber is that a problem.

There are more Mesoamerican archaeologists who would consider the Book of Mormon to have taken place in Mesoamerica than there are for North America. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking about 5 to 0. There might be more than 5 for the Mesoamericanists. I am unaware of a single trained archaeologist who accepts the North American hypothesis. I would love to be corrected, if you know one. The 5 or more Mesoamericanists are are LDS. You won't find secular archaeologists thinking much about the Book of Mormon at all.

Please remember that there is no correlation that says Nephites were the Maya or Zoque--but rather than they were in that region and participated in that culture. It is certain that there were Maya and Zoque who knew nothing about Nephites (and wouldn't have know that they were called Lamanites). I'm glad you at least know Sorenson's name, though his original work is over 40 years old and his recent elaboration added examples without a lot of change. There are two trained Mesoamericanists who have been hired by the religion department at BYU. I know at least one of them was instructed to add Mesoamerican information into his classes. I am unaware of any Heartland proponents on the BYU staff. 

Now, you have returned to timber. The Maya and Zoque did build monumental structures with stone, but dwellings were wood. Most of the buildings were wood, and even the stone temples often had wooden lintels. The Mesoamerican sign for conquering a city is a burning, toppling temple. More to the point is Helaman 3:8. That points to a particular place north of Nephite lands that had to be relatively devoid of trees and therefore built with cement. That fits Teotihuacan both in geography and specifics. And that is real cement, not mud or adobe. 

So what are the pluses for a Mesoamerican geography?

1) the distances actually fit (Neville's are not unreasonable if you posit that everyone is travelling in boats--other than that they are way off).

2) The seasonality of warfare in the text fits with the seasons in Mesoamerica.

3) The acoustics of temple plazas provide the conditions that fit both Benjamin and Mosiah's speeches.

4) The developing culture during early Book of Mormon times explains why the people demanded a king, why there was pressure for polygamy, and why people wore costly apparel.

5) There is evidence of an invasion that caused an exodus from what we suppose to be the land of Nephi right when the Book of Mormon says one occurred.

6) The presence of Zoqueans in the area believed to be Zarahemla demonstrates why there were unintelligible languages and different religions.

7) The fortifications along the eastern seaboard actually have a military function in a more compact geography.

9) There is a good reason why Limhi's party that searched for Zarahemla didn't find it, but found remains of Jaredites insteat.

10) The temporal and geographical separation between Jaredites and Nephites works for Mesoamerica.

11) There are numerous cultural data that provide appropriate context to Book of Mormon descriptions.

12) The archaeology actually supports what the Book of Mormon says - there was agriculture sufficient for, and evidence of, large populations; there were written records; there are cities in the right places that carbon-14 to the correct Book of Mormon periods.

There are, of course, more.

 

[cdowis]

May I emphasize the extensive use of "written records"  which were on perishable materials.  Both the Nephites and eventually the Lamanites corresponded extensively.