Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 5 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. I think this quote sums it up quite well: "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.
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: 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. Still...nothing in the BoM states they abandoned this language and integrated into other indegenious groups. If anything, it states the opposite -- the need to preserve the language of their fathers.
Rajah Manchou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: I think this quote sums it up quite well: "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. But wait, didn't those Norse sailors have metallurgy, writing (runes), knowledge of wheels, chariots, horses, and all the other things that would have been impossible to carry to the New World without transforming the culture. If these things are game changers then why did they disappear with the Norse sailors? There are two different arguments emerging here. But nevermind, let's get to the heart of the issue. Is it possible for an advanced group with knowledge of "game changing" technologies to live and trade with indigenous peoples without transforming the culture? 2
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: 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. Assuming it had wheels which isn't mentioned. It seems much more likely to be a travois or something similar. I know it's unpopular to look at what the apologists find in mesoamerica rather than traditional (uninformed) Mormon lay readings and art. Still it's worth noting that chariots aren't mentioned in war. The only occurrences deal with King Lamoni and then later livestock when the Nephites withdraw from the Gadianton robbers. It's pretty hard from those references to say the meaning is the same as the Biblical uses. We know the pre-columbian mesoamericans had wheels, just that they didn't use them for chariots of the near eastern sort. We don't know which of the three words translated as chariot the Book of Mormon is thinking of. One is merkabah famous from Ezekiel's mysticism and later merkabah mysticism (interestingly a likely context for Mosiah 15). An other is reeks which means a chariot or rider or upper millstone (I've heard it has a broader meaning outside of the Bible but I'm not a Hebrew expert by any means). The last one, appiryon, is translated as chariot in Song of Solomon 3:9 but sedan chair or carriage in most others except for the JPS which uses the term palanquin. Which again looks like that travois I mentioned, only carried by people. We know palanquins are not only common around the world but were used by royalty in mesoamerica. Brant Gardner's theory is that we have a littler with "horses" coming with the king as his spiritual animals. See his Traditions of the Fathers, 295–297; Second Witness, 288–289. Speculative of course but very plausible. For a picture of this sort of thing, albeit with a dog, see this vase. 3
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 31 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Still...nothing in the BoM states they abandoned this language and integrated into other indegenious groups. If anything, it states the opposite -- the need to preserve the language of their fathers. Dude, no one is saying they totally abandoned that language. The whole point of the plates is that it is still there up through Moroni. You are attacking a strawman. The point I've repeatedly made is about abandoning the language as their primary language.
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: But wait, didn't those Norse sailors have metallurgy, writing (runes), knowledge of wheels, chariots, horses, and all the other things that would have been impossible to carry to the New World without transforming the culture. If these things are game changers then why did they disappear with the Norse sailors? There are two different arguments emerging here. But nevermind, let's get to the heart of the issue. Is it possible for an advanced group with knowledge of "game changing" technologies to live and trade with indigenous peoples without transforming the culture? Yes, and there is a great deal of actual archeological evidence to support this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/dig_reports_01.shtml http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-viking-mystery-59648019/ https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/ancient-site-offers-clues-to-vikings-in-america.html?referer= https://www.google.com/amp/amp.history.com/news/satellite-technology-suggests-new-viking-site-in-canada There is no evidence that the wheel/chariot was used in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. IMO, saying that they used chariots thousands of years before the Europeans arrived is like saying they were driving cars in the Eastern US during the Revolutionary War. It's just absurd; it's a technology that did not exist at that time period.
Rajah Manchou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Yes, and there is a great deal of actual archeological evidence to support this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/dig_reports_01.shtml http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-viking-mystery-59648019/ https://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/ancient-site-offers-clues-to-vikings-in-america.html?referer= https://www.google.com/amp/amp.history.com/news/satellite-technology-suggests-new-viking-site-in-canada There is no evidence that the wheel/chariot was used in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. IMO, saying that they used chariots thousands of years before the Europeans arrived is like saying they were driving cars in the Eastern US during the Revolutionary War. It's just absurd; it's a technology that did not exist at that time period. There are two conflicting arguments going on. One is saying that it is impossible for an advanced civilization to live among an indigenous population without spreading their technological knowledge and completely transforming the culture. The other is that the Vikings brought iron production and their knowledge of everything in the Old World and traded with Native Americans but we aren't able to prove it conclusively because it looks like the technologies they brought with them did not spread. You say there is no evidence that the wheel/chariot was used in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. But the vikings used chariots. Did they forget what a wheel was as soon as they touched the North American shore? Edited March 16, 2017 by Rajah Manchou 1
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Assuming it had wheels which isn't mentioned. It seems much more likely to be a travois or something similar. I know it's unpopular to look at what the apologists find in mesoamerica rather than traditional (uninformed) Mormon lay readings and art. Still it's worth noting that chariots aren't mentioned in war. The only occurrences deal with King Lamoni and then later livestock when the Nephites withdraw from the Gadianton robbers. It's pretty hard from those references to say the meaning is the same as the Biblical uses. We know the pre-columbian mesoamericans had wheels, just that they didn't use them for chariots of the near eastern sort. We don't know which of the three words translated as chariot the Book of Mormon is thinking of. One is merkabah famous from Ezekiel's mysticism and later merkabah mysticism (interestingly a likely context for Mosiah 15). An other is reeks which means a chariot or rider or upper millstone (I've heard it has a broader meaning outside of the Bible but I'm not a Hebrew expert by any means). The last one, appiryon, is translated as chariot in Song of Solomon 3:9 but sedan chair or carriage in most others except for the JPS which uses the term palanquin. Which again looks like that travois I mentioned, only carried by people. We know palanquins are not only common around the world but were used by royalty in mesoamerica. Brant Gardner's theory is that we have a littler with "horses" coming with the king as his spiritual animals. See his Traditions of the Fathers, 295–297; Second Witness, 288–289. Speculative of course but very plausible. For a picture of this sort of thing, albeit with a dog, see this vase. Chariot = travois Steel = isn't steel Horse = tapir And the list goes on and on... Do any words in the BoM hold any significant meaning? Isn't the BoM supposedly the most correct book on Earth?
Physics Guy Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 The Viking settlements at l'Anse aux Meadows seem to show that technology transfer between Iron Age and Stone Age societies does not happen inevitably with brief contact on a small scale. The Viking population in what is now Newfoundland is estimated to have been somewhere around 100 people, and it seems to have endured for only a few years at most. 15 kilograms—about 33 pounds—of slag from iron refining has been found at the site. That might have made perhaps seven pounds or so of iron. It shows that someone who could extract iron was there, but this is definitely not the evidence of ongoing iron production over generations. The Book of Mormon scenario involves scales which, even if considerably exaggerated, must have been far larger. Seven pounds of iron is an amount that a small and temporary settlement could just keep to itself. For a whole urban culture to keep its iron industry from affecting nearby cultures over centuries seems less plausible.
Rajah Manchou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 32 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: The Viking settlements at l'Anse aux Meadows seem to show that technology transfer between Iron Age and Stone Age societies does not happen inevitably with brief contact on a small scale. The Viking population in what is now Newfoundland is estimated to have been somewhere around 100 people, and it seems to have endured for only a few years at most. 15 kilograms—about 33 pounds—of slag from iron refining has been found at the site. That might have made perhaps seven pounds or so of iron. It shows that someone who could extract iron was there, but this is definitely not the evidence of ongoing iron production over generations. The Book of Mormon scenario involves scales which, even if considerably exaggerated, must have been far larger. Seven pounds of iron is an amount that a small and temporary settlement could just keep to itself. For a whole urban culture to keep its iron industry from affecting nearby cultures over centuries seems less plausible. You have a valid point. But l'Anse aux Meadows is not the only site. 28 pounds of slag were found 300 miles to the southwest. So there are two different sites with iron production most likely spanning a timeframe greater than a few years and with a population more than 100 people. "L’Anse aux Meadows fits well with that story but is only one site. Point Rosee could reinforce that story or completely change it if the dating is different from L’Anse aux Meadows. We could end up with a much longer period of Norse activity in the New World.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ It could be argued that Point Rosee was not Norse, but then who was smelting iron there? And why did we know nothing about them until 2016? Are there more iron smelting sites deeper into the continent? "If Sarah Parcak can find one Norse site using satellites, then there’s a reasonable chance that you can use the same method to find more, if they exist. If Point Rosee is Norse, it may open up coastal Canada to a whole new era of research.” 2
Duncan Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: I think this quote sums it up quite well: "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. and it was a fluke it was even found. The husband and wife team got tipped off by the local newfies. I highly doubt every square inch of central and South America has even been excavated, let alone interpreted and everyone agrees on things so I am not ruling out the BOM. If you are a non Mormon would you make connections to the BOM with what you found? I don't know any academic Archaeology journals that discuss the BOM but I have never heard of any attacking the book either 1
Kevin Christensen Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 15 hours ago, Gervin said: How could the written language as described in the Book of Mormon not also leave behind examples? Deja vu... http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF And this despite the Book of Mormon mention of the problem with perishable materials and the known stories of burning by the Spanish, as well as melting down of gold and other metals, and demonstrated pre-Conquest politics where annihiliation of political rivals and records was standard procedure, and the fact that only a very small percentage of Mesoamerican sites have been excavated. No matter how many times I bring these artifacts up, they leave no trace in your consciousness. Interesting... And there is also Brian Stubbs' work. http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/12/uto-aztecan-and-its-connection-to-near_2.html FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: No matter how many times I bring these artifacts up, they leave no trace in your consciousness. Interesting... Fundamentally the critic view is that the traditional 20th century lay member view is the only way to interpret the Book of Mormon. Any other reading is twisting the text to fit archaeology (as if that doesn't go on with any process of interpreting ancient texts to figure out setting). The defense (not that he is necessarily making this) is that for apostles to be useful they must interpret the text completely accurately and for the translation to be accurate or "most perfect" it has to have no translation artifacts of the KJV language. (As opposed to perfect in doctrine related to the atonement which is all it claims) To my mind none of those assumptions are defensible. Certainly I don't accept any of them. Edited March 16, 2017 by clarkgoble 4
Gervin Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Deja vu... http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF And this despite the Book of Mormon mention of the problem with perishable materials and the known stories of burning by the Spanish, as well as melting down of gold and other metals, and demonstrated pre-Conquest politics where annihiliation of political rivals and records was standard procedure, and the fact that only a very small percentage of Mesoamerican sites have been excavated. No matter how many times I bring these artifacts up, they leave no trace in your consciousness. Interesting... And there is also Brian Stubbs' work. http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/12/uto-aztecan-and-its-connection-to-near_2.html FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA My guess is that also leave no trace in the consciousness of archaeology and anthropology scholars at Brigham Young University - so I'm in good company.
RevTestament Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 On 3/14/2017 at 8:51 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/ Assuming we know the area that Zarahemla was in, this could certainly help, but we have had LiDar now for awhile, and it would do basically the same thing, as her method - her's just allows it to be done from space over large areas. I believe she has discovered Viking settlements with this method - I'm sure I don't need to point out however, that doesn't name them. Zarahemla was one of dozens of cities, which I believe were fairly close together, so obviously we need something more to identify Zarahemla itself - like geographical clues, etc. Nice try at being facetious tho 1
bluebell Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Chariot = travois Steel = isn't steel Horse = tapir And the list goes on and on... Do any words in the BoM hold any significant meaning? Isn't the BoM supposedly the most correct book on Earth? That's how translations work. You've already been provided examples, that have nothing to do with the BOM or LDS, where a chariot isn't a wheeled contraption. I've been reading how old world explorers called new world weapons "swords" even though they were not made of metal but instead were rock and wood. People often use familiar concepts or words to describe similar but "not quite the same thing" ideas or items. Leaving out the issue of whether or not the BOM is actually the word of God and actually describes an ancient civilization, it doesn't seem reasonable to demand that LDS have a different standard for trying to understand translated documents and ancient peoples than the rest of the world. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: I think this quote sums it up quite well: "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. No! That is not correct. Nephites were those that accepted Christ and Lamanites were everyone else.
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Gervin said: My guess is that also leave no trace in the consciousness of archaeology and anthropology scholars at Brigham Young University - so I'm in good company. Those claims are universally accepted I think. They're not controversial in the least.
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: That's how translations work. You've already been provided examples, that have nothing to do with the BOM or LDS, where a chariot isn't a wheeled contraption. I've been reading how old world explorers called new world weapons "swords" even though they were not made of metal but instead were rock and wood. People often use familiar concepts or words to describe similar but "not quite the same thing" ideas or items. Leaving out the issue of whether or not the BOM is actually the word of God and actually describes an ancient civilization, it doesn't seem reasonable to demand that LDS have a different standard for trying to understand translated documents and ancient peoples than the rest of the world. The difference is: these explorers weren't translating by the power of God, right? When JS used the seer stone (or other instruments), didn't words appear right on the stone itself? The church essay states: "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.26" https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true So by the power of God words like horse, chariot, steel appeared on these translation instruments; however, they were not the correct words? This also means that King James Bible errors also appeared on these instruments. If that's how translations by the power of God work, then any word in the BoM could mean anything.
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: The difference is: these explorers weren't translating by the power of God, right? When JS used the seer stone (or other instruments), didn't words appear right on the stone itself? The church essay states: "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.26" https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true So by the power of God words like horse, chariot, steel appeared on these translation instruments; however, they were not the correct words? This also means that King James Bible errors also appeared on these instruments. If that's how translations by the power of God work, then any word in the BoM could mean anything. Those claims were not by JS himself. In fact were demonstrably disproved. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.8?lang=eng If the words appeared in English no translating would be necessary. No! They could not mean anything. They still have to make sense, and the story hold together. Which they do. Edited March 16, 2017 by thesometimesaint
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Those claims were not by JS himself. In fact were demonstrably disproved. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.8?lang=eng If the words appeared in English no translating would be necessary. No! They could not mean anything. They still have to make sense, and the story hold together. Which they do. Well, the use of seer stones and instruments (and words appearing on them) is in the church's own essay: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: So by the power of God words like horse, chariot, steel appeared on these translation instruments; however, they were not the correct words? This also means that King James Bible errors also appeared on these instruments. Again correct in what sense? What you're arguing here is that having the seer stone entails a tight translation. But I'm not seeing much convincing evidence that this must follow. What I'd guess is your thinking is that a tight translation is better than a loose translation and if God is doing the translating he could do any translation that's possible. Thus the seer stone should entail the best translation by your judgement and not merely a good enough translation. But I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking, if those are indeed the lines you're thinking along. Edited March 16, 2017 by clarkgoble 4
Ouagadougou Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said: Again correct in what sense? What you're arguing here is that having the seer stone entails a tight translation. But I'm not seeing much convincing evidence that this must follow. If words appeared on the instrument, then how could the wrong words appear?
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Those claims were not by JS himself. In fact were demonstrably disproved. SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.8?lang=eng If the words appeared in English no translating would be necessary. No! They could not mean anything. They still have to make sense, and the story hold together. Which they do. I don't think the "words appeared" and "study it out in your mind" are necessarily opposed. There's a fair bit of evidence for the words appearing and spelling of names. However it also seems clear effort on Joseph's part was required. 2
clarkgoble Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: If words appeared on the instrument, then how could the wrong words appear? I'm first off not at all convinced the wrong words appeared. If the method of translation takes the Hebrew word represented on the plates and follows the way the KJV translates that same word how is that wrong? What you're saying is that it shouldn't translate the word but should figure out the reference and provide an English word with the same reference. That's certainly an other valid way to translate but one isn't more correct than an other. You're merely expressing a preference to privileging translating reference rather than word. Second if Joseph's mind is involved in the translation and Joseph is ignorant then incorrect words could easily appear. If Joseph's effort is involved then the same thing would happen. While we have no real clue how the translation worked, I'd bet it's akin to how Google translate works. There idea fragments in Joseph's mind. He has to engage in effort to activate those (which are highly biased towards phrases and passages of the KJV but also the 19th century theological talk of the era). The device then matches the proper phrases to the general ideas on the plates. Edited March 16, 2017 by clarkgoble 2
Recommended Posts