Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Gervin]

7 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

When you test a hypothesis, the beginning point could be anything based on any amount of data. I know little about you, but I could test a hypothesis that said that you might know something about archaeology. I could test a hypothesis that you don't. For the first, I would find confirming evidence. For the second, I would find disconfirming evidence. The only problem with any hypothesis is if I preclude any statement you have made that would indicate what you knew because I thought you were lying and conspiring to mislead. That would be completely dishonest and certainly would be attempting to prove by beginning hypothesis. However, in that case, I wasn't testing the hypothesis, but simply going through motions to confirm a prejudice. (And so everyone is clear, I do not believe this second one at all and use it because it is obviously incorrect).

Even though the second hypothesis could be posited and explained according to a prejudice, the first could just as well. Were I willing to use evidence incorrectly, I could still use prejudice to disconfirm the first. So what does all of that mean? It means that when we focus only on the beginning and not the analysis, we miss the point. The hypothesis is to be tested, and the methodology and honesty with which it is tested is the real question.

What limited evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient did you use as a starting point?

 0

[Brant Gardner]

55 minutes ago, Gervin said:

What limited evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient did you use as a starting point? 0

When I was doing undergraduate work, I had decided that there was no way that we would know where the Book of Mormon took place. I accepted it on faith, and without worrying about any connection to archaeology and anthropology. I had a conversation with John Sorenson, after which he gave me a photocopy of the manuscript that would eventually become his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. He convinced me that he had a set of data that made sense against archaeology for the first time. I hadn't seen anything prior to that time that was even close.

After that, I didn't think much about it, but began writing a commentary on the Book of Mormon that assumed that historical background. The question was to see if reading the text against that background elucidated anything, or matched what was known of the text. After that process was more successful than I had expected it to be, I have kept working on the topic. As part of the refining of data on the hypothesis, I have found that I differ in a number of things from Sorenson, and while I agree broadly with his geography, I think his use of archaeological and anthropological data has been imprecise at times. 

If you are asking if I ever set up a hypothesis and tested it--that would have been when I hypothesized that the Book of Mormon should be elucidated by the context and make more sense against context than without it. The limited data upon which I began that investigation was Sorenson's work that was good enough that it held the promise that the hypothesis I tested could be correct.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

One of the problems have have with this theory of yours is how did Moroni get from some South Pacific island to New York all by himself to drop off the plates? Seriously, how did he cross the Pacific ocean by himself with a bunch of metal records (witness accounts of a hidden room in Cumorah filled with metal plates)? Also, what about the verses about in the BoM about this land being chosen for the righteous?  It this chosen land really some island or an area in southeast Asia?  

By boat?

If the Jaredites could cross the Pacific in 2500 BC and the Mulekites and Lehites could cross the Atlantic and/or Pacific in 600 BC. Then why couldn't Moroni anytime after 420 AD? He's a resurrected being so he must have had plenty of time until his meeting with Joseph Smith. 

As for "this land" being chosen for the righteous, wouldn't that include all the territory discovered by Christopher Columbus? All the isles of the sea (and what would later be recognized as the American continent) between the West Indies and the East Indies. Columbus died thinking he had discovered the Blessed Isles of Southeast Asia.

"Christopher Columbus, on his fourth and last voyage of 1502–1503, planned to follow the coast of Champa (Vietnam) southward around the Cape of Cattigara (Cambodia) and sail through the strait separating Cattigara from the New World, into the Sinus Magnus (Gulf of Thailand) to Malacca (Malaysia)...On reaching Cariay on the coast of Costa Rica, Columbus thought he was close to the gold mines of Champa (Vietnam). On July 7, 1503, he wrote from Jamaica: “I reached the land of Cariay...Here I received news of the gold mines of Champa which I was seeking”.

Even after four trips, Columbus still thought he was in Southeast Asia. So I don't know where the Land of Promise begins and where it ends. Not sure anyone does. I think the safest bet is to say the Land of Promise is synonymous with the Islands of the Blessed, and call it good.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

It really is a very different issue, and one that is complicated by assumptions from the Old World. The best explanation of the problem is Olmec archaeology. We certainly know that there is Olmec archaeology. We know a fair amount about broad outlines of Olmec religion, and some about political organization. What we don't really know is who the people are that we are calling Olmec. That name is a modern mistake that stuck. There was a more modern people who lived in that region named Olmec, and so the ruins were called Olmec--then it was discovered that they were much, much older. Still, the name stuck, and the more modern group was distinguished as Olmec-Xicalanca. 

So, let's say that there is a scrap of a document that, in a different language (we are not certain what language the Olmec spoke) says that they name was "the people" (pretty common  name that people call themselves). It would be incorrect to say that there was no "the people" archaeology simply because they are known as the Olmec. They could all have been "the people."

Of course, the reality is that even "Olmec" is used as a wide cultural label that covers what were different groups who probably would have denied that they were at all similar to other cities that we call Olmec.

So, we have a New World problem. We use categorical/cultural labels that were not indigenous to the people we use them to describe. We don't have the texts to know just what was going on, though we can now read enough glyphs to know that there were competing kingdoms with names that they used to identify themselves--and none of them were "Maya." We have archaeology, but to say that we do or do not have the specific archaeology for a particular group misunderstands the nature of the New World problem.

God hasn't hidden anything. History and the lack of imperishable texts did the hiding, as much as anything.

 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

It really is a very different issue, and one that is complicated by assumptions from the Old World. The best explanation of the problem is Olmec archaeology. We certainly know that there is Olmec archaeology. We know a fair amount about broad outlines of Olmec religion, and some about political organization. What we don't really know is who the people are that we are calling Olmec. That name is a modern mistake that stuck. There was a more modern people who lived in that region named Olmec, and so the ruins were called Olmec--then it was discovered that they were much, much older. Still, the name stuck, and the more modern group was distinguished as Olmec-Xicalanca. 

So, let's say that there is a scrap of a document that, in a different language (we are not certain what language the Olmec spoke) says that they name was "the people" (pretty common  name that people call themselves). It would be incorrect to say that there was no "the people" archaeology simply because they are known as the Olmec. They could all have been "the people."

Of course, the reality is that even "Olmec" is used as a wide cultural label that covers what were different groups who probably would have denied that they were at all similar to other cities that we call Olmec.

So, we have a New World problem. We use categorical/cultural labels that were not indigenous to the people we use them to describe. We don't have the texts to know just what was going on, though we can now read enough glyphs to know that there were competing kingdoms with names that they used to identify themselves--and none of them were "Maya." We have archaeology, but to say that we do or do not have the specific archaeology for a particular group misunderstands the nature of the New World problem.

God hasn't hidden anything. History and the lack of imperishable texts did the hiding, as much as anything.

 

I guess a lot of what you write goes over my head. So how do you come to this conclusion, and others before you didn't? Speaking of Thomas Ferguson,

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

 

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have developed a list of approximately 24 archaeological points of veracity in the Book of Mormon - that is archaeological findings which directly support what the Book of Mormon says, which I believe there is no way Joseph Smith could have known. There are more archaeological findings which also tend to support the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon does not itself bring up. Literally, the earth itself is bringing forth the evidence to support what the Book of Mormon says.

 

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Let's look at another possibility.  There are hundreds of Nephite/Lamanite artifacts -- in plain view, displayed in museums.  God has "hidden" nothing.

But let's pretend that the archaeologist picks up a jade necklace made by a Nephite, or he is walking and exploring an authentic Nephite city.  Please tell us how he would be able to identify it.  Will he find a crucifix, an icon of the Madonna,  a road sign "Welcome to Zarahemla"?

Plus, the Christians, in general, were in the minority, so you will find heathen gods (which is exactly what we find).

Now remember that virtually ALL of the codices were destroyed, so we won't find a codex copy of the brass plates, or any record of the Christian religion.   There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Nephite/Lamanite artifacts == but NO WAY TO IDENTIFY THEM.

HELP US == tell us how to identify them.

You all have good points, but we do in fact know what the artifacts look like, and John Sorenson has them beautifully displayed in his Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS Research Press, 1998), which is out of print -- but copies can be found online.  There is no mystery about the archeology of the Book of Mormon, as Brant Gardner has repeatedly pointed out.

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

You all have good points, but we do in fact know what the artifacts look like, and John Sorenson has them beautifully displayed in his Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS Research Press, 1998), which is out of print -- but copies can be found online.  There is no mystery about the archeology of the Book of Mormon, as Brant Gardner has repeatedly pointed out.

I don't mean to sound so clueless, but where is the evidence? Do you have links, verifying?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Tacenda

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess a lot of what you write goes over my head. So how do you come to this conclusion, and others before you didn't? Speaking of Thomas Ferguson,

Not my intent to go over your head, I assure you. It is hard for me to speak about how anyone else might think or use evidence. However, in the case of Ferguson I have heard his issues discussed by people who know him. The first issue was that he was quite the literalist when reading the text. He certainly expected to find evidence of horses and maybe even menorahs. The second issue was that he was a lawyer and not an archaeologist--which means he was an intelligent man, but without the background to understand the kind of information he was seeing from the archaeologists. 

Of course, I have to confess that there are lots of other people who come to conclusions that differ from mine, so the best I can do is present my case as best I can.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You all have good points, but we do in fact know what the artifacts look like, and John Sorenson has them beautifully displayed in his Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life 

Hallelujah!

All I have to do is show these pictures to the BOM critics, and they will immediately recognize them as Nephite or Lamanite artifacts.  

I assume this is a joke.

Edited November 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Marmonboy]

How does one differentiate between a Mayan artifact and a Nephite one? The same way one differentiates between an English object and a French one, I guess. Obviously the similarities far outweigh the differences. We have to rely on language, but what if we didn't know either English or French? That is the issue we find in Mesoamerica--there isn't a functional difference between Nephite and other material culture, so trying to find the smoking gun of an unmistakeable "Nephite" artifact is gonna be pretty tough, just like the difference between a French can of soup and an English one (without labels, of course--that would involve language).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't mean to sound so clueless, but where is the evidence? Do you have links, verifying?

As I said, even though Sorenson's book is out of print, one can obtain copies online.  However, you can see a very well-qualified archeologist, John Clark, speak to the issue on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2jhXU8PJUk (2005 FAIR Conference lecture).  With plenty of illustrations.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Hallelujah!

All I have to do is show these pictures to the BOM critics, and they will immediately recognize them as Nephite or Lamanite artifacts.  

I assume this is a joke.

The artifacts, as Brant Gardner continues to point out, are the same artifacts all Mesoamerican archeologists know so well.  There are no surprises.  For non-archeologists, I suggest that they actually look at the Sorenson volume, with full descriptions -- after they stop laughing before the fact (perhaps with malice aforethought).  A little sincerity goes a long way in all such endeavors, for anti-Mormon critics as well as for the faithful.  Both can be equally ignorant.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/16/2016 at 10:42 AM, Gervin said:

"Battles in Mesoamerican regularly involved just such numbers"

There's your quote.  What do you mean by "regularly" and "such numbers"? 

Sorry to take so long in getting back to you on your CFR, Gervin, but I had no summary immediately available and had to assemble one:

Pedro A. Olavarria once made a very credible case on this board for the warlike nature of the Olmec, as part of his comparison of them with the Jaredites.  Olavarria, Oct 4, 2011, OP topic: “The Olmec-Jaredite Convergence,” online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55864-the-olmec-jaredite-convergence/#comment-1209051848 .  This even included the Jaredite place-names and personal names – for example, Pedro A. Olavarria, “Heshlon As An Akkadian Word,” Dec 2, 2011, online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56405-heshlon-as-an-akkadian-word/ .

Michael D. Coe has argued that a powerful ideology, a strong hierarchy, and a unitary religion pervaded a large area under Olmec influence, even if there is no evidence of military conquest and rule.[1]  Christopher A. Pool likewise tells us that the Olmec certainly had a society of strongly ranked hierarchies, especially early on at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan (99 acres in Veracruz),[2] “and it is likely that Olmec groups fought with one another.  Nevertheless, the archaeological evidence for warfare among the Olmec is notable for its scarcity and ambiguity.”[3]  There are, it is true, “bent, serrated ‘swords’ or war clubs depicted on San Lorenzo Monuments 78, 91 and probably 83, but only in the last is the implement shown in a person’s grasp (Cyphers 2004: 145-146, 149-150, 159).”[4]

            None of this confirms that the Olmecs did not engage in war or that Olmec rulers never coerced their subjects through force.  However, intensified warfare, to the extent it is represented in Olmec art, appears to have followed the establishment of social ranking rather than to have fostered its emergence.  Moreover, the use of military force by Olmec rulers against their own subjects seems to have been more an implied threat than an active strategy.[5]

As Olavarria notes, the principal Olmec city later became La Venta (on 160 acres in Tabasco),[6] most likely through the type of warfare described in the book of Ether.

Although, “the cause of the eventual extinction of the Olmec culture” is unknown, “Between 400 and 350 BCE, the population in the eastern half of the Olmec heartland dropped precipitously,”[7] at the same time when the Jaredites disappeared, i.e., even though there had been a long-term, “drastic political and demographic decline” or shift since the 2^nd millennium B.C.[8]

Most Olmec lived in small villages, while the elite lived in sacred cities.  Even though early Olmec villages were built on high ground for defensive purposes,[9] there does not seem to be any evidence for walled cities or for siege warfare.  Thus, it is likely that most conflicts would have involved raids by not more than a thousand warriors at a time (as was typical among the much later Maya city-states, according to David Webster).[10]  There were, however, times when an entire population could arise and carry on full-scale war[11] – sometimes called a “star war,”[12] going back to war as practiced by ancient Teotihuacan.[13]  In any case, one dead giveaway that a war took place is the finding of large numbers of projectile points concentrated along walls and likely areas of attack – as commonly found in some Maya cities.  We simply do not see that in Olmec cities, although we do see deliberate destruction (as pointed out by Olavarria).

Warfare was only practical from late Autumn through early Spring (the dry season),[14] the same sort of limitation on warfare in the ancient Near East.

What were the potential numbers of those who could be fielded for a total war? The ultimate “star war.”  For the Olmec, Maya, and the much later Aztecs, the base populations were huge.  We can look first at the carrying capacity of Olman – the Olmec region in Veracruz-Tabasco:

Ignacio Bernal tells us that Mike Coe claimed that Olman existed within around 6,200 square miles (= 125 x 50 miles), while Bernal estimates it to be a little larger -- a total of 7,000 square miles.[15]  Thus, if the entire Jaredite population lived on 7,000 sq miles of terri­tory, could we reasonably account for around 4 million people living in that territory?  Note that 2 million of Coriantumr's men are slain (Eth 15:2), and that he spends 4 years gathering more (15:14), making 4 million a rather conservative estimate. 

Gordon R. Willey showed that scholars believe that the later popu­lation in the densest Maya areas could have been as high as 300 per square kilometer (777 per square mile), and certainly at least 150/sq km.  The old figure, based on milpa agriculture, was around 77/sq km.[16]  With Olmec levees, swamp drainage, and intensive irrigation agriculture,[17] which was likewise found within the nearby Oaxaca Valley and among the later Maya, at 300 persons per square mile, Olman could theoretically have supported 5,439,000 people.  However, even if limited to merely the milpa (swidden) agriculture standard of around 200 persons per square mile, we could project a population of Olman at around 1,400,000, but that is a ridiculously low number – given the sophisticated “Oriental despotism” prevailing in Olman.[18]

Among the later Maya, for example, “in roughly AD 700, the Maya population numbered perhaps 10 million.  . . . , as population densities rose, more intensive practices were adopted to increase yields.  These included terracing, household gardens, irrigation, raised-bed agriculture, and tree crops such as cacao, allspice, avocado, and papaya.”[19]

Even in the pre-Olmec phase, “using fairly conservative values for population densities within sites, Symonds et al. (2002: Fig. 4.4) estimate that the maximum pre-Olmec population for the 400 sq km San Lorenzo survey area was 426 to 1017, or about 1 to 2.5 people per square kilometer.  Even the most densely populated area, the 90 sq km inner hinterland of San Lorenzo, would have held a population density of less than 7 per sq km.  By comparison, Symonds et al. estimate that maize yields from the inner hinterland alone could have supported 3,505 to 8,763 people (39-97 per sq km).”[20]

That means that pre-Olmec maize yields from the inner area alone could have supported 101 to 251 per square mile (for a total of from 3,505 to 8,763 population for the 35 square mile inner area of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan).  During the 2^nd millennium B.C. Olmec florescence, these figures increased at least 20-fold.  As Christopher Pool said:

            During the Chicharras and San Lorenzo phases, however (ca. 1450-1000B.C.), population grew some 20-fold.  Total population is estimated to have been between 8,554 and 18,735 (21-47 per sq km), and population in the inner hinterland was between 6,952 and 15,022 (71-107 per sq km) (Symonds [137] et al. 2002: Figs. 4.4, 4.5).[21]

This means that early Olmec maize yields had increased to support a population density of 184 to 277 per square mile, for a total of 6,952 to 15,022 within the inner area of San Lorenzo.  The area surrounding San Lorenzo had a much larger population, although the density was less.  Either way, the figures can easily be extrapolated to be in the millions at the time of the final Jaredite civil war.

Moreover, whatever the exact figures might be, no historian expects that the use of the word “millions” is always meant to be taken literally.  We know from historical documents worldwide that descriptions of ancient battles and casualty figures were regularly exaggerated.  One might just as well have used the term “myriad.”

---

[1] Coe, Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 4th ed..(Thames and Hudson, 1994), 81.

[2] Pool, Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007), 136.

[3] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 138, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=hXmfpr08JPUC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Pool,+Olmec+Archaeology+and+Early+Mesoamerica .

[4] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 139.

[5] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 139.

[6] “Olmec,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec , is an easily accessible summary.

[7] “Olmec,” Wikipedia; Philip L. Russell, The Essential History of Mexico: From Pre-conquest to Present (Routledge, 2015), 8, online at http://vps101811.vps.ovh.ca/brozar-182/8772485140-the-essential-history-of-mexico-from-pre-conquest-to-present-by-philip-russell.pdf .

[8] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 152.

[9] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

[10] Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm ; “Maya Warfare,” Authentic Maya, online at http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_warfare.htm.

[11] “Maya Warfare,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_warfare , citing David Webster, 2004.

[12] Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm ; “Maya Warfare,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_warfare ,

[13] Linda Schele and David Freidel, A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya (William Morrow, 1990), 130-131,

[14] Ross Hassig, War and Society in Ancient MesoAmerica (UC Press, 1992), 53, online at http://books.google.com/books?id=0X3TExVt0EYC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=teotihuacan+armies .

[15] Bernal, The Olmec World (U.C. Press, 1969), 17.

[16] Willey, "Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture: A Contemporary Summation," in P. D. Harrison & B. C. Turner II, eds., Pre-­Hispanic Maya Agriculture (Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1978), 325-326. Cf. Willey, "Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review" (in W. Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1981]; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1987], pp. 107-136) and in his 1979 Huxley Memorial Lecture "Toward an Holistic View of Ancient Maya Civilization" (Man, 15:249-266; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology, pp. 143-147).

[17] Bruce Owen, “Mesoamerica: Olmecs and Teotihuacan,” World Prehistory Class 17 (Dept of Anthropology, Sonoma State Univ., 2000), online at http://bruceowen.com/worldprehist/3250s17.htm .

[18] Cf. Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (Yale Univ. Press, 1957), online at https://archive.org/stream/KarlAugustWittfogel-OrientalDespotism/KarlAugustWittfogel-OrientalDespotism_djvu.txt .

[19] Philip Russell, The Essential History of Mexico, 11; so also David Webster and Susan Toby Evans, “Mesoamerican Civilization,” chapter 16, in C. Scarre, ed., The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies, 2^nd ed. (Thames & Hudson, 2009), 595, online at http://anth.la.psu.edu/documents/Webster_Evans_MesoAmerican.pdf .

[20] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

[21] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

How does one differentiate between a Mayan artifact and a Nephite one? The same way one differentiates between an English object and a French one, I guess. Obviously the similarities far outweigh the differences. We have to rely on language, but what if we didn't know either English or French? That is the issue we find in Mesoamerica--there isn't a functional difference between Nephite and other material culture, so trying to find the smoking gun of an unmistakeable "Nephite" artifact is gonna be pretty tough, just like the difference between a French can of soup and an English one (without labels, of course--that would involve language).

Perhaps its more like a Mormon artifact vs an atheist artifact to bring it up to the present day

At least that is the way I understand the paradigm.  Pottery, utensils, buildings etc pretty much know no religion.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry to take so long in getting back to you on your CFR, Gervin, but I had no summary immediately available and had to assemble one:

Pedro A. Olavarria once made a very credible case on this board for the warlike nature of the Olmec, as part of his comparison of them with the Jaredites.  Olavarria, Oct 4, 2011, OP topic: “The Olmec-Jaredite Convergence,” online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55864-the-olmec-jaredite-convergence/#comment-1209051848 .  This even included the Jaredite place-names and personal names – for example, Pedro A. Olavarria, “Heshlon As An Akkadian Word,” Dec 2, 2011, online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56405-heshlon-as-an-akkadian-word/ .

 

Michael D. Coe has argued that a powerful ideology, a strong hierarchy, and a unitary religion pervaded a large area under Olmec influence, even if there is no evidence of military conquest and rule.[1]  Christopher A. Pool likewise tells us that the Olmec certainly had a society of strongly ranked hierarchies, especially early on at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan (99 acres in Veracruz),[2] “and it is likely that Olmec groups fought with one another.  Nevertheless, the archaeological evidence for warfare among the Olmec is notable for its scarcity and ambiguity.”[3]  There are, it is true, “bent, serrated ‘swords’ or war clubs depicted on San Lorenzo Monuments 78, 91 and probably 83, but only in the last is the implement shown in a person’s grasp (Cyphers 2004: 145-146, 149-150, 159).”[4]

 

            None of this confirms that the Olmecs did not engage in war or that Olmec rulers never coerced their subjects through force.  However, intensified warfare, to the extent it is represented in Olmec art, appears to have followed the establishment of social ranking rather than to have fostered its emergence.  Moreover, the use of military force by Olmec rulers against their own subjects seems to have been more an implied threat than an active strategy.[5]

 

As Olavarria notes, the principal Olmec city later became La Venta (on 160 acres in Tabasco),[6] most likely through the type of warfare described in the book of Ether.

 

Although, “the cause of the eventual extinction of the Olmec culture” is unknown, “Between 400 and 350 BCE, the population in the eastern half of the Olmec heartland dropped precipitously,”[7] at the same time when the Jaredites disappeared, i.e., even though there had been a long-term, “drastic political and demographic decline” or shift since the 2^nd millennium B.C.[8]

 

Most Olmec lived in small villages, while the elite lived in sacred cities.  Even though early Olmec villages were built on high ground for defensive purposes,[9] there does not seem to be any evidence for walled cities or for siege warfare.  Thus, it is likely that most conflicts would have involved raids by not more than a thousand warriors at a time (as was typical among the much later Maya city-states, according to David Webster).[10]  There were, however, times when an entire population could arise and carry on full-scale war[11] – sometimes called a “star war,”[12] going back to war as practiced by ancient Teotihuacan.[13]  In any case, one dead giveaway that a war took place is the finding of large numbers of projectile points concentrated along walls and likely areas of attack – as commonly found in some Maya cities.  We simply do not see that in Olmec cities, although we do see deliberate destruction (as pointed out by Olavarria).

 

Warfare was only practical from late Autumn through early Spring (the dry season),[14] the same sort of limitation on warfare in the ancient Near East.

 

What were the potential numbers of those who could be fielded for a total war? The ultimate “star war.”  For the Olmec, Maya, and the much later Aztecs, the base populations were huge.  We can look first at the carrying capacity of Olman – the Olmec region in Veracruz-Tabasco:

 

Ignacio Bernal tells us that Mike Coe claimed that Olman existed within around 6,200 square miles = 125 x 50 miles), while Bernal estimates it to be a little larger -- a total of 7,000 square miles.[15]  Thus, if the entire Jaredite population lived on 7,000 sq miles of terri­tory, could we reasonably account for around 4 million people living in that territory?  Note that 2 million of Coriantumr's men are slain (Eth 15:2), and that he spends 4 years gathering more (15:14), making 4 million a rather conservative estimate. 

 

Gordon R. Willey showed that scholars believe that the later popu­lation in the densest Maya areas could have been as high as 300 per square kilometer (777 per square mile), and certainly at least 150/sq km.  The old figure, based on milpa agriculture, was around 77/sq km.[16]  With Olmec levees, swamp drainage, and intensive irrigation agriculture,[17] which was likewise found within the nearby Oaxaca Valley and among the later Maya, at 300 persons per square mile, Olman could theoretically have supported 5,439,000 people.  However, even if limited to merely the milpa (swidden) agriculture standard of around 200 persons per square mile, we could project a population of Olman at around 1,400,000, but that is a ridiculously low number – given the sophisticated “Oriental despotism” prevailing in Olman.[18]

 

Among the later Maya, for example, “in roughly AD 700, the Maya population numbered perhaps 10 million.  . . . , as population densities rose, more intensive practices were adopted to increase yields.  These included terracing, household gardens, irrigation, raised-bed agriculture, and tree crops such as cacao, allspice, avocado, and papaya.”[19]

 

Even in the pre-Olmec phase, “using fairly conservative values for population densities within sites, Symonds et al. (2002: Fig. 4.4) estimate that the maximum pre-Olmec population for the 400 sq km San Lorenzo survey area was 426 to 1017, or about 1 to 2.5 people per square kilometer.  Even the most densely populated area, the 90 sq km inner hinterland of San Lorenzo, would have held a population density of less than 7 per sq km.  By comparison, Symonds et al. estimate that maize yields from the inner hinterland alone could have supported 3,505 to 8,763 people (39-97 per sq km).”[20]

 

That means that pre-Olmec maize yields from the inner area alone could have supported 101 to 251 per square mile (for a total of from 3,505 to 8,763 population for the 35 square mile inner area of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan).  During the 2^nd millennium B.C. Olmec florescence, these figures increased at least 20-fold.  As Christopher Pool said:

 

            During the Chicharras and San Lorenzo phases, however (ca. 1450-1000B.C.), population grew some 20-fold.  Total population is estimated to have been between 8,554 and 18,735 (21-47 per sq km), and population in the inner hinterland was between 6,952 and 15,022 (71-107 per sq km) (Symonds [137] et al. 2002: Figs. 4.4, 4.5).[21]

 

This means that early Olmec maize yields had increased to support a population density of 184 to 277 per square mile, for a total of 6,952 to 15,022 within the inner area of San Lorenzo.  The area surrounding San Lorenzo had a much larger population, although the density was less.  Either way, the figures can easily be extrapolated to be in the millions at the time of the final Jaredite civil war.

 

Moreover, whatever the exact figures might be, no historian expects that the use of the word “millions” is always meant to be taken literally.  We know from historical documents worldwide that descriptions of ancient battles and casualty figures were regularly exaggerated.  One might just as well have used the term “myriad.”

 

---

[1] Coe, Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 4th ed..(Thames and Hudson, 1994), 81.

 

[2] Pool, Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007), 136.

 

[3] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 138, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=hXmfpr08JPUC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Pool,+Olmec+Archaeology+and+Early+Mesoamerica .

 

[4] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 139.

 

[5] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 139.

 

[6] “Olmec,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec , is an easily accessible summary.

 

[7] “Olmec,” Wikipedia; Philip L. Russell, The Essential History of Mexico: From Pre-conquest to Present (Routledge, 2016), 8.

 

[8] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 152.

 

[9] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

 

[10] Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm ; “Maya Warfare,” Authentic Maya, online at http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_warfare.htm.

 

[11] “Maya Warfare,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_warfare , citing David Webster, 2004.

 

[12] Christopher Minster, “The Ancient Maya: War and Warfare,” AboutEducation, online at http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/The-Ancient-Maya-War-And-Warfare.htm ; “Maya Warfare,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_warfare ,

 

[13] Linda Schele and David Freidel, A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya (William Morrow, 1990), 130-131,

 

[14] Ross Hassig, War and Society in Ancient MesoAmerica (UC Press, 1992), 53, online at http://books.google.com/books?id=0X3TExVt0EYC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=teotihuacan+armies .

 

[15] Bernal, The Olmec World (U.C. Press, 1969), 17.

 

[16] Willey, "Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture: A Contemporary Summation," in P. D. Harrison & B. C. Turner II, eds., Pre-­Hispanic Maya Agriculture (Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1978), 325-326. Cf. Willey, "Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review" (in W. Ashmore, ed., Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico, 1981]; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology [Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1987], pp. 107-136) and in his 1979 Huxley Memorial Lecture "Toward an Holistic View of Ancient Maya Civilization" (Man, 15:249-266; reprinted in Willey, Essays in Maya Archaeology, pp. 143-147).

 

[17] Bruce Owen, “Mesoamerica: Olmecs and Teotihuacan,” World Prehistory Class 17 (Dept of Anthropology, Sonoma State Univ., 2000), online at http://bruceowen.com/worldprehist/3250s17.htm .

 

[18] Cf. Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (Yale Univ. Press, 1957), online at https://archive.org/stream/KarlAugustWittfogel-OrientalDespotism/KarlAugustWittfogel-OrientalDespotism_djvu.txt .

 

[19] Philip L. Russell, The Essential History of Mexico: From Pre-conquest to Present (Routledge, 2015), 11, online at http://vps101811.vps.ovh.ca/brozar-182/8772485140-the-essential-history-of-mexico-from-pre-conquest-to-present-by-philip-russell.pdf ; so also David Webster and Susan Toby Evans, “Mesoamerican Civilization,” chapter 16, in C. Scarre, ed., The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies, 2^nd ed. (Thames & Hudson, 2009), 595, online at http://anth.la.psu.edu/documents/Webster_Evans_MesoAmerican.pdf .

 

[20] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

 

[21] Pool, Olmec Archaeology, 136.

 

Dang, Robert.

Your abilities never fail to amaze!

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

How does one differentiate between a Mayan artifact and a Nephite one? The same way one differentiates between an English object and a French one, I guess. Obviously the similarities far outweigh the differences. We have to rely on language, but what if we didn't know either English or French? That is the issue we find in Mesoamerica--there isn't a functional difference between Nephite and other material culture, so trying to find the smoking gun of an unmistakeable "Nephite" artifact is gonna be pretty tough, just like the difference between a French can of soup and an English one (without labels, of course--that would involve language).

I think the BoM text could help us out and actually serve as a guide to identifying Nephite artifacts.  We should be looking for temples and synagogues patterned after those found in the mid-east.  Also, any script that resembled Egyptian and/or Hebrew (different from all those Mayan glyphs they keep finding), smelted iron (doesn't even have to be steel). Metal swords (not wooden clubs) that the BoM says were used along with helmets, coins, silk.  Evidence of huge battles (tens of thousands of men) that dwarf any Roman battles would also be something we should be watching out for.  That is just for starters.  A huge iron age civilization that existed for a thousand years, right up until 400 A.D. doesn't just vanish without a trace.  To believe so strains credibility.  To date, we have more evidence of the existence of the Neanderthals than we do of anything to do with the BoM.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I think the BoM text could help us out and actually serve as a guide to identifying Nephite artifacts.  We should be looking for temples and synagogues patterned after those found in the mid-east.

And look for Hebrew and Egyptian inscriptions, the star of David, etc???  First, as far as we know, there were no synagogues among the Jews until after the Babylonian Captivity, well after Lehi had left..  And exactly how do you identify a distinctive Jewish temple.  Are you really going to find that Temple of Solomon after centuries of rain forest, and occupation by the Lamanites.

Second, the BOM tells us that centuries had changed the language into something unrecognizable.

It is my view that we should not be looking for Jews in Mesoamerica but Nephites and Lamanites.  They were separated from their Jewish roots for centuries, without any contact, and we expect find the Star of David, etc, in mesoamerica?

 Also, any script that resembled Egyptian and/or Hebrew (different from all those Mayan glyphs they keep finding), smelted iron (doesn't even have to be steel).

The BOM tells us that iron was so scare that, by the time of Kihg Noah, they were listed as precious as gold and silver.  The only iron in mesoamerica would likely be, not from mines but from meteors.

Metal swords (not wooden clubs) that the BoM says were used along with helmets, coins, silk.  

You haven't read the Book of Mormon, have you.  Your knowledge is from the anrtiMomon version of the Book of Mormon.   So, yes, there were swords using wood and obsidian, called macuahuitls.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl but the antis didn't tell you that there is no mention of coins.

Please don't waste our time with this antiMofmon garbage. Do your own research, think for yourself!!!!

Evidence of huge battles (tens of thousands of men) that dwarf any Roman battles would also be something we should be watching out for.  T

You don't know what you are talking about. Just give this argument a couple of minutes of intelligent thought and you will discover how silly it is.  There is no metal involved, we are talking about battlefields buried under two to three thousand years of tropical forest.  HOw much of mesoamerica has been excavated down to that level, especially outside the cities.

THINK FOR YOURSELF!!  The antMormons have poisoned your mind with their garbage.

hat is just for starters.  A huge iron age civilization that existed for a thousand years, right up until 400 A.D. doesn't just vanish without a trace.  To believe so strains credibility.  To date, we have more evidence of the existence of the Neanderthals than we do of anything to do with the BoM.

This was NOT an Iron Age civilization.  Look at the archaeology of Mesoamerica.  Do your homework. 

In case you are unaware, the modest amount of iron available  would RUST in a tropical forest.  See what happened to the Jaredite swords.

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think the BoM text could help us out and actually serve as a guide to identifying Nephite artifacts.  We should be looking for temples and synagogues patterned after those found in the mid-east.

They don't have to be patterned after those found in the middle east, any more than today's Jews have to pattern their modern synagogues after long ago patterns.  Instead they follow the architecture and patterns of the current culture.  You see, for example, ultra-Orthodox Jews wearing regalia which was adopted in Eastern Europe a few centuries ago when it was in fashion -- that is why they look so much like Amish, because the Amish did the same thing and got locked into it.

Quote

 Also, any script that resembled Egyptian and/or Hebrew (different from all those Mayan glyphs they keep finding), smelted iron (doesn't even have to be steel). Metal swords (not wooden clubs) that the BoM says were used along with helmets, coins, silk.

The linguistic features of both Egyptian and Hebrew have been found among Mesoamerican peoples, as well as among Amerind languages in the Southwestern USA.  The were originally discovered by non-Mormon scholars.  Iron was used extensively by the Olmec, and we have tons of it from Olmec sites, primarily in the form of worked hematite and ilmenite.  None smelted so far.  There are no coins mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and "silk" was certainly known in its Mesoamerican form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObM5AjjqqY ).  Mesoamerican warriors used non-metallic helmets, and their "swords" (as described by the Spanish, and as recovered archeologically) were macuahuitls with obsidian blades inserted all along the edge.

 

Quote

Evidence of huge battles (tens of thousands of men) that dwarf any Roman battles would also be something we should be watching out for.  That is just for starters.  A huge iron age civilization that existed for a thousand years, right up until 400 A.D. doesn't just vanish without a trace.  To believe so strains credibility.  To date, we have more evidence of the existence of the Neanderthals than we do of anything to do with the BoM.

Perhaps you would like to cite your sources on Old World (including Roman) warfare and then compare it with the Book of Mormon.  You seem to have skipped that step in your haste to falsely condemn the BofM.  You need to become serious, and to leave behind your need to mock the BofM -- without knowing anything about it.  As far as Neanderthals are concerned, I am sure that you know nothing of that subject as well.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

A huge iron age civilization that existed for a thousand years, right up until 400 A.D. doesn't just vanish without a trace.  To believe so strains credibility. 

Again, this does happen. The largest iron producing civilization in the world during the Book of Mormon period flourished on the Malay Peninsula between the 6th century BC and the 5th century AD. Dating of the first buildings and pits with slag and millions of tuyeres (bellows) for smelting iron is to 535 BC. The civilization grew to a population over one million with hundreds of walled cities expanding north through a narrow neck of land up into mainland Southeast Asia.

But there was no archaeological evidence of its existence until about 10 years ago.

PS, it was founded by a warrior-king from the Middle East named Maroni who practiced a primeval Abrahamic religion. I challenge anyone who doubts the plausibility of a Nephite-like civilization popping up in a jungle in the 6th century BC to do research on these iron-age civilizations that are just now starting to surface. Watch this video and then ask if the Book of Mormon strains credibility.

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[sunstoned]

48 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

Judging from the venom oozing from your post, the total lack of BoM evidence must be a real sore spot for you. 

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

Actually, the scientific method would have you start with the hypothesis that it is a modern document.  You then see if you can scientifically reject that hypothesis.  Technically one cannot prove a hypothesis, only reject statistically the negative.

For example, does it contain information or evidence of an ancient origin (e.g. words or names) which would have been unavailable to Joseph Smith.  Rejecting the hypothesis does not "prove" that it is ancient, because there may be other explanations, such as "just a coincidence".
Wordprint studies would test whether it was written by a single author.

   I do not follow you there. If you were reading a history book and in it was presented a complete document supposedly from the eighteenth century, why would the scientific method dictate that a hypothesis be formulated that the document was of modern origin?  It might be helpful to review what Friedrich Blass said about testing a document for authenticity, as expounded on by Hugh Nibley.

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

I can believe that archaeology, and history in general, are harder than most people realize. Good evidence is scarce. And it may be that the fairly detailed and well-corroborated ancient history that we have for the Middle East is an anomalous fluke. I understand that the history of India is shockingly vague in comparison.

Plausible excuses for lack of evidence, however, are still not evidence. Some of the discussions of evidence for the Book of Mormon can start to sound, to my non-Mormon ears, like the Monty Python cheese shop sketch. The excuses may be valid and all, but they really don't make the situation much better.

I also have to say that when I'm nodding my head to all these sensible, natural reasons why we can't find Zarahemla (or wouldn't recognize it if we did), at some point I remember the part about an angel with golden plates and translating by miracle. At that point the issues of language drift and architectural fashions suddenly seem incongruous. It's as though I'm hearing Superman explain that he missed the villain this time because he had a flat tire. For a while I'm nodding along, because a flat tire at rush hour is obviously major. But then I think, Wait a minute. Aren't you Superman?

I know, it's not a knock-down argument. But isn't it a little weird, somehow, to have all this miraculous power to preserve the Nephite records on the one hand, and then on the other hand have all these mundane historical problems being insurmountable?

[Marmonboy]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

 

I know, it's not a knock-down argument. But isn't it a little weird, somehow, to have all this miraculous power to preserve the Nephite records on the one hand, and then on the other hand have all these mundane historical problems being insurmountable?

Welcome to the asylum!

I think, IMNSHO, the plates were preserved because, first of all, they're gold, and gold doesn't rust or corrode or rot away like other forms of record-keeping would, and second, the records were the important thing. What kind of houses the Nephites lived in, or what kinds of swords they killed each other with, or what shape their churches were, is not relevant or important to our salvation. But what the Savior taught them is.

[cdowis]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   I do not follow you there. If you were reading a history book and in it was presented a complete document supposedly from the eighteenth century, why would the scientific method dictate that a hypothesis be formulated that the document was of modern origin?  It might be helpful to review what Friedrich Blass said about testing a document for authenticity, as expounded on by Hugh Nibley.

Glenn

You're asking me to teach you a course in research methodology and statistics.  Sorry, not interested, but once you have taken that class, read Nibley's article.  You will discover that the scientific method is built into what he wrote.

Edited November 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I can believe that archaeology, and history in general, are harder than most people realize. Good evidence is scarce. And it may be that the fairly detailed and well-corroborated ancient history that we have for the Middle East is an anomalous fluke. I understand that the history of India is shockingly vague in comparison.

Plausible excuses for lack of evidence, however, are still not evidence. Some of the discussions of evidence for the Book of Mormon can start to sound, to my non-Mormon ears, like the Monty Python cheese shop sketch. The excuses may be valid and all, but they really don't make the situation much better.

I also have to say that when I'm nodding my head to all these sensible, natural reasons why we can't find Zarahemla (or wouldn't recognize it if we did), at some point I remember the part about an angel with golden plates and translating by miracle. At that point the issues of language drift and architectural fashions suddenly seem incongruous. It's as though I'm hearing Superman explain that he missed the villain this time because he had a flat tire. For a while I'm nodding along, because a flat tire at rush hour is obviously major. But then I think, Wait a minute. Aren't you Superman?

I know, it's not a knock-down argument. But isn't it a little weird, somehow, to have all this miraculous power to preserve the Nephite records on the one hand, and then on the other hand have all these mundane historical problems being insurmountable?

It reminds me of the following:

"Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found. Just six centuries earlier the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes."

- Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, 2004.