New Archaeological Tool Could Find Zarahemla...it's Only a Matter of Time

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm always surprised every time this apologetic attention deflection technique is rolled out (no offense Blueblell) whenever the question is asked Why haven't we found Zarahemla, a Nephite artifact or anything else that might act as evidence for the existence of any Book of Mormon claim....the apologetic question then follows asking well duh what would that look like?  Why isn't the answer just as simple and easily answered from a direct reading of the BoM that could answer this question.  The city of Zarahemla would look exactly like the Nephite City that it claims to be...complete with Nephite Walls, Nephite armaments such as steal swords and the like, it might have the remains of dead horses, or a wheeled chariots remains, perhaps a wheat or barley silo still within the city walls or any of the other markings claimed to have existed in the Nephite civilization...if we're lucky we might even find a limnah of gold or an onti of silver laying around. Why would we expect to find anything other than what the book claims existed in the Nephite civilization? I mean seriously why make it any more complicated than what the Book of Mormon claims to have existed in the Book of Mormon. So what would we find and what would it look like...it would look like a Nephite City with many of the markings one would expect to find in a Nephite City...also it would probably have a lot of Christology within its walls as well...that's what a Book of Mormon city would look like and that is how we could tell it apart from all non-BoM cities.  But perhaps our best and first choice would be to focus on all of these cities that were destroyed by earthquakes and whose contests and people were buried with them.

How is an Egyptian village identified as an ancient Egyptian village or a Greek village identified as a Greek village...they have all of the markings and contents one would expect to find within an Egyptian or Greek village...why would we rise the bar higher for a Nephite village or city it should have to meet the same standard as that of any claimed ancient civilization?

Archaeologist can tell the difference  between an Etruscan  and a Roman village Why?  Because each has distinct and unique characteristic's.  The distinct characteristic's of a BoM city have been provided within the pages of the BoM...  those unique qualities will easily set them apart form those of the cities of native non Nephite populations

I find that most of the time, when people start making demands on BOM archaeology, they often don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about.  They don't usually have any archaeological education or training, and typically haven't done any personal studying on the subject.

So it's just easier to ask them upfront what they would expect to see in an archaeological site that would confirm it to be of BOM origins.  

I don't have much archaeological training myself (only about 40 hours on site and about 50 or so hours of classroom training which is a tiny drop in the bucket and means i know practically nothing) so i don't have all the answers to your questions.  But, an Egyptian and Greek village is identified because it is located in Egypt and in Greece and has artifacts (such as religious because both groups of people were heavily pagan) that connect it to that culture.  The placement of Etruscan villages (and Etruscan society and culture) are so well known because they were written about by early Roman historians and we have access to some of their writings.  There are no etruscan villages (that i'm aware of, but my knowledge is very limited) that are not also Roman or celtic villages because the culture was completely assimilated by the Romans and others, which we know about because, again, of early Roman writers.

The problem with BOM stuff though is that you can't identify a BOM village by where it is located, and it would be very very difficult to identify it using artifacts because most of the artifacts left would be the same you would find in non-BOM villages because the cultures bled into each other.  And there are no surviving histories from other cultures (such as with the etruscans) to point out where they might have been located.

Because new world civilizations were so different from old world ones, the archaeological record is really different as well.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

From the BoM text, one could possibly expect evidence of smelting and metal working, including metal weapons (2 Nephi 5:15).  There would be  synagogues (Alma 16:13; 21:4, 5, 16; 26:29; 32:1; Moroni 7:1) , evidence of domesticated animals, such as horses (1 Nephi 18:25,  Alma 18:9—12) and cattle (1 Nephi 18:25).   And of course artwork that depicted these animals.

Good points, but they still need to be examined to see what is reasonable to expect to find and what might not be.  

I believe they have found evidence of smelting and metal working, so we have that.  It's not a given that the swords mentioned in the BOM were metal, and if they were, finding them would be rare since people typically used weapons until they were no beyond repair and did not tend to leave them behind.  But, such a find would definitely help BOM archaeology and is a good example of what would help set a part a BOM site.

Evidence of horses and cattle is also a good example, though we do need to remember that there isn't evidence from the BOM of how many of such animals were kept on average.  It's not a given that every BOM village had them, for example, so demanding they be present in the archaeological record for something to qualify could be problematic.  We don't read about them at all after AD 30 or so, so they might not have been in large numbers ever and could even have been in such small population as to have died out.

To be clear, i'm not saying that there is nothing that would or should separate a BOM village from a non-BOM village.   I'm just pointing out that BOM archaeology isn't as clear cut as old world archaeology and some people, because they don't understand archaeology in general, have unrealistic expectations.

  

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I find that most of the time, when people start making demands on BOM archaeology, they often don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about.  They don't usually have any archaeological education or training, and typically haven't done any personal studying on the subject.

It seems that LDS apologist are making demands on the BOM all of the time...to force it to sync with reality...of course when they do it its just acceptable apologetics, when a critic simply asks that the BOM be taken at its word...then we are making demands of the book.  Umm ok

Quote

So it's just easier to ask them upfront what they would expect to see in an archaeological site that would confirm it to be of BOM origins.  

I don't have much archaeological training myself (only about 40 hours on site and about 50 or so hours of classroom training which is a tiny drop in the bucket and means i know practically nothing) so i don't have all the answers to your questions.  But, an Egyptian and Greek village is identified because it is located in Egypt and in Greece and has artifacts (such as religious because both groups of people were heavily pagan) that connect it to that culture.  The placement of Etruscan villages (and Etruscan society and culture) are so well known because they were written about by early Roman historians and we have access to some of their writings.  There are no etruscan villages (that i'm aware of, but my knowledge is very limited) that are not also Roman or celtic villages because the culture was completely assimilated by the Romans and others, which we know about because, again, of early Roman writers.

Current LDS apologetics promotes the premises that the Nephites were assimilated by an existing culture, over whelmed that culture and imposed their own minority culture on the majority, including their religion (yeah that happens all the time) their form of government (because existing governments love to hand over power all the time to minority immigrant populations), their language, etc etc...of course apologists merely claim that this all happened without ever providing a scintilla of evidence to support their absurd and bizarre claims. 

The Etruscan's did meld with the Romans...but we only know that they existed because of what of their culture was left behind...that's a point...real civilizations leave behind evidence of their existence...this is how we know that Etruscan's actually existed...unlike the claimed Nephite civilization which to date have only existed within the pages of the Book of Mormon

Quote

The problem with BOM stuff though is that you can't identify a BOM village by where it is located, and it would be very very difficult to identify it using artifacts because most of the artifacts left would be the same you would find in non-BOM villages because the cultures bled into each other.  And there are no surviving histories from other cultures (such as with the etruscans) to point out where they might have been located.

Because new world civilizations were so different from old world ones, the archaeological record is really different as well.

"IF" the Nephites existed....then it seems reasonable that they left evidence of their existence...they would have left behind Nephite artifacts...but we've all argued this line of reasoning in dozens of threads...so really there is no point to do so again.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It seems that LDS apologist are making demands on the BOM all of the time...to force it to sync with reality...of course when they do it its just acceptable apologetics, when a critic simply asks that the BOM be taken at its word...then we are making demands of the book.  Umm ok

I didn't say anything about making demands on the book.  I said that demands on new world archaeology and BOM cultures are made that often times aren't reasonable.

Quote

The Etruscan's did meld with the Romans...but we only know that they existed because of what of their culture was left behind...that's a point...real civilizations leave behind evidence of their existence...this is how we know that Etruscan's actually existed...unlike the claimed Nephite civilization which to date have only existed within the pages of the Book of Mormon

 

Etruscan culture wasn't left behind for archaeologists to find.  It was written about by early Roman historians and their words have allowed us to recognize the culture when we see it.  We know the etruscans existed because of the writings of the Romans.

Quote

IF the Nephites existed....then it seems reasonable that they left evidence of their existence...they would have left behind Nephite artifacts...but we've all argued this line of reasoning in dozens of threads...so really there is no point to do so again.

Obviously.  The problem is being able to recognize it.  

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

you have made a pretty huge assumption that Nephite metals were rare.  Other than knowing that ancient American metals were rare...how exactly do you come to the conclusion that Nephite Metals were rare...I don't get that conclusion from a simple reading of the book.

At best we don't know how rare they are. Which means we can't assume they are common. However my argument is based upon the text and how it is used. We know initially they are potentially common from the Nephi statement. We then see that with time they get used more and more narrowly and more and more rarely.

If the argument is about the probability of what we'd find, the relative abundance of artifacts maters a great deal. Saying that possibly there were many is not reasonable if the argument is an argument from silence due to not finding them. With the items that I think are findable I'd love to find them and I think I was explicit they are discoverable. However I think it unlikely we would find them. Those making the argument that it is likely we would find them if the book is true have the burden of proof to explain from the text why they must (not may) be abundant.

So the items I'd as findable thus far are:

1. scales from 150 - 50 BC  --- abundant --- not sure it'd establish much though and a scale could just be a rope, stick and bags.

2. writing in Hebrew or reformed Egyptian --- apparently rare and hidden  --- unlikely to be found due to Spanish destruction

3. old world fauna --- probably non-existent --- unlikely to be found since neither the Jaredites or Nephites brought them

4. old world flora -- possibly uncommon as we don't know how many survived long term -- unlikely to be found

5. old world metal working -- probably uncommon in terms of swords, possibly common in terms of farm implements or decorations, but probably taken when cities were sacked -- possible to find, but unlikely as we don't know how common they were (are we talking of hundreds of items that possibly were melted down or destroyed?) It's completely compatible with the text to assume just a few swords that may have had the metal repurposed to other uses with only the sword or laban remaining and that appears to be had by Moroni.

6. chariot -- possibly common -- not stated as having wheels so possibly just a pulled stand. Not clearly Nephite

Quote

to me, they had metal in all of its forms and it was plentiful...as far as the Nephites were concerned.

At what period and by "forms" what do you mean by that? 

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Duncan]

I wonder though when Lehi et al came over they had a different culture than the one they came into  but I doubt that would be a constant thing 500 years after they landed. If I moved to the US I would bring my HBC blanket, my Shania Twain mug and my gift card to Tim Hortons among other things. However were I too visit my posterity in 500 years who had been living in the US I doubt any of that stuff would even exist, let alone 2000 years from now. They would be absorbed into the local culture. The language would be different, like my posterity would be saying, "Kee-nada" and "Uh-Meerica" so I wonder if language would remain a constant and culture gets taken over. Let's forget that the various terms get thrown around a bit, Lamanite, Nephite etc.

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It seems that LDS apologist are making demands on the BOM all of the time...to force it to sync with reality...of course when they do it its just acceptable apologetics, when a critic simply asks that the BOM be taken at its word...then we are making demands of the book.  Umm ok

Current LDS apologetics promotes the premises that the Nephites were assimilated by an existing culture, over whelmed that culture and imposed their own minority culture on the majority, including their religion (yeah that happens all the time) their form of government (because existing governments love to hand over power all the time to minority immigrant populations), their language, etc etc...of course apologists merely claim that this all happened without ever providing a scintilla of evidence to support their absurd and bizarre claims.

The argument is pretty straighforward and I think they've provided evidence. (1) there were archaeologically millions of others in the Americas (2) early on the Lamanites leave and we don't hear of them again except when attacking and they've mysteriously changed appearance somewhat (3) the Nephites leave their initial colony and move to a different location and we read of constant exchange of populations with the Lamanites (4) there are hints of others that while not open to other readings certainly are suggestive. We also don't know what was on the 116 pages which holds the crucial history of the Nephites prior to Benjamin and covering the second expulsion of the Nephites by the Lamanites.

The scriptures usually tied to others are the following:

Nephi took "all those who would go with me" who weren't his family, Zoram, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, his sisters and their families. i.e. who is left to be these others who aren't listed? Not Laman and Lemuel. While it's possible it's some children of Laman and Lemuel it's likely it's others who didn't arrive with them. (See 2 Nephi 5:5-6)

Lamanites become those who come against Nephites. While it's true one could read this just as the descendants of Laman and Lemuel the point is that anyone who fights against the Nephites gets the broad category of Lamanite. So it functions much as gentile did for the Palestian & Babylonian Jews where all non-Jews were gentiles.

The warning against mixing with the Lamanites in 2 Ne 5:23 suggests that it was already happening. i.e. there were already Nephite dissenters

There's an argument that gentile in the Isaiah portions Jacob and Nephi quotes doesn't refer just to Europeans at Columbus and after although I personall find that a weak argument. The stronger argument tied to this 2 Ne 10:18-19 which talks of those who will become numbered as their seed. i.e. non-Nephites. Again while this could be read as Lamanites it sounds more like non-Nephites get treated as Nephites. i.e. that the Nephites have a political adoption theology which presupposes non-Nephites to adopt.

The scriptures dealing with scattering, that we know the Nephites applied to themselves talk about being scattered among other people. See Dt 28:64; Jer 29:18; Hos 9:17; Dt 4:27 parallel to 1 Ne 10:12-13 etc. The olive tree allegory of Jac 5 talks of grafting on the roots of wild trees which is appears applied to the Nephites (Jac 5:25;43)

Nephi considers there are many led to the promise land (1 Nephi 17:37-8; 2 Nephi 1:5)

We meet the mulekites but they've lost their history and we don't know who they merged with. The Nephites merge with the muelikites.

So we note archaeologically there are lots of people, there are groups the Nephites explicitly merge with whose histories we don't know (muelikites and lamanites); the political identities are explicitly stated to be those who align with the Nephites or oppose them rather than genetic; the Nephites have an explicit doctrine of adoption; the prophecies expect them to merge with other groups. That's pretty compelling evidence IMO.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

On 3/14/2017 at 7:51 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

National Geographic Fellow, Sarah Parcak, an Egyptologist, is pioneering the young field of satellite archaeology, using futuristic tools to unlock secrets from the past and transform the way discoveries are made. "We're using satellites to help map and model cultural features that could never be seen on the ground because they're obscured by modernization, forests, or soil," she explains.

Parcak blends expertise with advanced computer programs, satellite imagery analysis, and old-fashioned digging to reveal thousands of new sites, including lost pyramids, temples, monasteries, tombs, homes, and even entire towns.

Parcak has already been successful in using this new tool to discover "other" previously unknown Egyptian Cities and sights...Now all we need is someone brave enough to ask her to go on a search for the long lost City of Zarahemla, Earthquake ravaged Lamanite and Nephite Cities from when Christ visited America (so far none have been discovered) or any other hidden Book of Mormon city.  It's only a matter of time until we have actual archaeological proof for the existence of the Book of Mormon....and boy I can hardly wait.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/bios/sarah-parcak/

We are just starting to use those techniques in central America. But even if found how would we know them apart from other cultures in that area?

Did the ancient Troy exist before we found it in 1871? Did that discovery prove the Greek Gods were real?

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Mosiah 1:2-3 certainly strongly suggests they'd largely abandoned their fathers language such that Benjamin had to teach it to his children.

" 2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

 3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God."

Sorry, but there is no mention whatsoever that they were going to abandon the language of their fathers--quite the opposite really:  "taught in the language of his fathers."

[Kevin Christensen]

It's worth reading Eggington's paper on Oral and Literate Cultures in the Book of Mormon.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=127

And to consider that the word "language" in the Book of Mormon is used in different ways in different places, sometimes, talking about dialect, other times, referring to the kinds of things that were on people's tongues, their topics of spoken interest.  In some places it is very clear that one or the other meaning used, and in other places, it only seems clear because you fail to notice that the same word can mean different things.  The same seed (words) Jesus explained, can produce vastly different yields depending on soil, nurture and time.  "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Sorry, but there is no mention whatsoever that they were going to abandon the language of their fathers--quite the opposite really:  "taught in the language of his fathers."

I think you miss the argument. The idea is that their normal language isn't this priestly language and that it's something special they are taught this.

This is in my view a very strong argument that there are two languages for the people of Benjamin and the main one isn't the language of the scriptures.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gervin]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I find that most of the time, when people start making demands on BOM archaeology, they often don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about.  They don't usually have any archaeological education or training, and typically haven't done any personal studying on the subject.

Right.  Engage any professional archaeologist or anthropologist and they will confirm that there is no such "thing" as BOM archaeology.  There is no academic discipline dedicated to BOM archaeology, no exhibits of artifacts, no papers, or no books on BOM archaeology, and no field work being undertaken by BYU to further the field of BOM archaeology.  This "topic", as it were, is the purview of lay people like Brant Gardner who assume first that the Book is true and then attempt a 30,000-foot examination of cherry-picked texts to prove that assumption.  

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Right.  Engage any professional archaeologist or anthropologist and they will confirm that there is no such "thing" as BOM archaeology.  There is no academic discipline dedicated to BOM archaeology, no exhibits of artifacts, no papers, or no books on BOM archaeology, and no field work being undertaken by BYU to further the field of BOM archaeology.  This "topic", as it were, is the purview of lay people like Brant Gardner who assume first that the Book is true and then attempt a 30,000-foot examination of cherry-picked texts to prove that assumption.  

I agree, but to be clear, i used the term BOM archaeology as a shorthanded way to say "archaeological digs centered in the new world that could support  BOM claims."

[notHagoth7]

On 3/14/2017 at 3:22 PM, Gervin said:

Doesn't the Book of Mormon describe a reformed Hebraic / Egyptian writing system that was used for around 1,000 years?  We see plenty of Mayan traces of their writing system in carved stone, in paint on walls, etc.  How could the written language as described in the Book of Mormon not also leave behind examples?

Yet there are examples.

1. Among transplants in ancient/medieval Europe.

(Nephite in one column. Ancient/medieval European shorthand in the other.)

2. And among the Mikmaq

[Glenn101]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This whole idea of "others" in the BoM always seems to spark debate.   Apologist tend to support the idea of other peoples existing within the BoM time frame, while many members chose a more traditional belief, one that is supported by words of several modern prophets.  Here is what Elder Holland had to say about it:

Quote

The whole idea of "others" in the Book of Mormon is pretty much confirmed by archaeology. There were peoples inhabiting the areas already in the areas that most LDS scholars believe the Book of Mormon narrative took place.

 

[Glenn101]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

That's highly speculative.

See my response to sunstoned.

 

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said:

Yet there are examples.

1. Among transplants in ancient/medieval Europe.

(Nephite in one column. Ancient/medieval European shorthand in the other.)

2. And among the Mikmaq

So, what's the translation?

[notHagoth7]

29 minutes ago, Gervin said:

So, what's the translation?

Examples of Mikmaq translations:

As to Nephite/Tironian shorthand, meanings can hinge entirely on what language the characters are being leveraged to convey.

By way of example, "God mad" conveys one meaning in English. But the exact same letter sequence conveys something completely different in another closely-related Germanic language:

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by notHagoth7

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A synagogue is just a building where they met. It doesn't necessarily have any unique distinguishing characteristics.

The only reference to metal swords is very early. So at best we may have a few swords Nephi made of unknown quality and then the sword of laban which is mentioned being used in Jacob and then after only as a kind of token of kingship. There are other hints that the other swords mentioned aren't metal. Even the account of Nephi suggests he's making something like the sword of laban but "after the manner of it." (2 Ne 5:14) It's not clear what that means. Likewise the verse you reference doesn't talk about metal swords but simply working in metal. Note that it doesn't say they were smelting metal. While we assume that's entailed he could very well be teaching them to rework some of the metal they brought with them. The "great abundance" is often taken to refer to all the metals but that's not at all clear. My sense is that "great abundance" modifies "precious ores" but it's not clear what those ores are. The face that ore is distinguished from the metal suggests that the first list are metals they already had and that the ore just refers to the metals they find in the land that aren't specified. (Although he does mention in 1 Nephi 18:25 that they found gold, silver and copper)

Since of course by the time of the main narrative of the book the Nephites don't live where they used to due to invasions, it's not at all clear any of those items would have survived. After the loss of the initial Nephite colony (and since we don't have the 116 pages we don't know much about it) we simply don't hear about metal. The latest reference is Jarom 1:8. There the emphasis on metal is as tills for farming and weapons - but note that the specified weapons no longer include swords. Rather they appear to only be used for arrow/speak heads. That's significant I think to say the least. It suggests they've already lost most of their metal and knowledge of metal work.

Given all that, I suspect there were at best only a few metal weapons. The only problematic metal is really copper. While that was known in the great lakes region it's relatively late in mesoAmerica. But of course we don't know how much copper the Nephites had. 

The next problematic reference is Mosiah 11 where King Noah is described of taxing gold, silver, "ziff", copper, brass and iron. They appear primarily to have been ornamental for buildings. (11:18) 

Certainly just finding copper, brass or iron that could be dated to this era of around 150 BC would be fantastic. The indication is though that these were rare and were decorations. Their rarity suggests that they would have quickly been looted and perhaps melted down into new objects. How many items there were isn't at all clear but the rarity suggests we shouldn't expect to find many of them if at all.

The domesticated animals are the biggest issue since of course there are no evidence of old world animals and the indication of the text is that no old world animals were brought with them -- see 1 Nephi 18:24-5. Only plants are mentioned as brought the listed animals were all indigenous which is one of the many reasons most assume they are old world words applied to new world animals for which they had no terms.

 

The working of metal and the creation of metal tools and weapons is a game changer for a society. These most valuable skills are passed down from generation to generation.  It strains credibility to think that  this would be something that would be forgotten.  Same thing with horses.  Horses are also a game changer. They transform societies. They gave the plains Indians a big edge and allowed them to become dominate among the North American tribes.  A horse society will have horses in their art, and oral and written histories. The horses the plains Indians had came from the Spaniards.  No evidence of horses in any of the American societies before the Spaniards. 

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you miss the argument. The idea is that their normal language isn't this priestly language and that it's something special they are taught this.

This is in my view a very strong argument that there are two languages for the people of Benjamin and the main one isn't the language of the scriptures.

Except for the fact that they still continue to write in the language of their fathers until the end of the BoM, without ever making mention that they abandoned this language.  

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Except for the fact that they still continue to write in the language of their fathers until the end of the BoM, without ever making mention that they abandoned this language.  

Clearly those trained in it didn't abandon it. However it's an indication it wasn't the main language and was abandoned for that.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The working of metal and the creation of metal tools and weapons is a game changer for a society. These most valuable skills are passed down from generation to generation.  It strains credibility to think that  this would be something that would be forgotten.  Same thing with horses.  Horses are also a game changer. They transform societies. They gave the plains Indians a big edge and allowed them to become dominate among the North American tribes.  A horse society will have horses in their art, and oral and written histories. The horses the plains Indians had came from the Spaniards.  No evidence of horses in any of the American societies before the Spaniards. 

The idea that metallurgy couldn't be lost seems dubious especially if they move away from where the ores are. If there's no ores to teach with how long would it remain? Not long.

Again to the other point, the text is explicit the Nephites didn't bring horses.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gervin said:

Right.  Engage any professional archaeologist or anthropologist and they will confirm that there is no such "thing" as BOM archaeology.  There is no academic discipline dedicated to BOM archaeology, no exhibits of artifacts, no papers, or no books on BOM archaeology, and no field work being undertaken by BYU to further the field of BOM archaeology.  This "topic", as it were, is the purview of lay people like Brant Gardner who assume first that the Book is true and then attempt a 30,000-foot examination of cherry-picked texts to prove that assumption.  

Until some unambiguous artifact related to the Book of Mormon is found there's no way to do Book of Mormon archaeology and as a few threads here have shown there's not a lot to expect.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

I wonder though when Lehi et al came over they had a different culture than the one they came into  but I doubt that would be a constant thing 500 years after they landed. If I moved to the US I would bring my HBC blanket, my Shania Twain mug and my gift card to Tim Hortons among other things. However were I too visit my posterity in 500 years who had been living in the US I doubt any of that stuff would even exist, let alone 2000 years from now. They would be absorbed into the local culture. The language would be different, like my posterity would be saying, "Kee-nada" and "Uh-Meerica" so I wonder if language would remain a constant and culture gets taken over. Let's forget that the various terms get thrown around a bit, Lamanite, Nephite etc.

Don't worry, I'm sure (Everything I Do) I Do it for You will still be playing on the radio in 2517. Keenada will not be forgotten!

[Ouagadougou]

27 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The working of metal and the creation of metal tools and weapons is a game changer for a society. These most valuable skills are passed down from generation to generation.  It strains credibility to think that  this would be something that would be forgotten.  Same thing with horses.  Horses are also a game changer. They transform societies. They gave the plains Indians a big edge and allowed them to become dominate among the North American tribes.  A horse society will have horses in their art, and oral and written histories. The horses the plains Indians had came from the Spaniards.  No evidence of horses in any of the American societies before the Spaniards. 

Think about this:

The chariot would be an absolute game changer for certain groups that had them; they could win battles easily with the chariot.  The problem is, there is no other records (historical and or oral traditions) that describe the use of chariots in the Americas as a form of transportation until the arrival of the Europeans.  

"The indigenous peoples of North America, however, would not use wheels for transportation until the arrival of European settlers."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-salute-to-the-wheel-31805121/