probablyHagoth7 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: Interesting he conjures up the image of a linguistic hotspot "spewing out languages" and then quickly dismisses it. Joseph said we're usually best going with our first impression. 1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said: (Apologies probablyhagoth, I'm not trying to hijack this thread. But since this also relates to European populations, I thought it might fit here) No apology needed. My initial purpose with this thread was accomplished yesterday. Your posts are intriguing, and speak to what Robert introduced as a key interest/concern. I'm fine if you two (and others) continue to riff/build here. Edited May 31, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: I see specifics tying in a specific "European" culture and Jaredite culture in the New World. Ditto, Please share. 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: ...I have also found at least one element of this [?European?] culture in the Levant. I have also found cultural ties between Judaic culture and the New World...To insist that all the ties I have found Listening. Please continue. 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: To insist that all the ties I have found arose independently starts really pushing the realm of believability. In other words it forms a convincing case that there were direct links, and that these cultural ties did not independently arise. Only a handful of early anthropologists even note these links, which are now ignored seemingly completely. Cited your statement here before, but this time around, Sorenson's/Johannessen's World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492 begged for attention, so I thumbed through it again. Perhaps they're two of the anthropologists you allude to? "This book is dedicated to all the tireless researchers in the world looking fearlessly for the truth, for all those flying in the face of convention and received wisdom." Great start. And, as with many sources, in dire need of being distilled into formats more engaging/meaningful for most readers/viewers/listeners/gamers. Edited May 31, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
Johnnie Cake Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 On 5/23/2017 at 11:46 AM, probablyHagoth7 said: I'd like to share/discuss something I have waited a long time to address. About a decade ago, I started to make public several things regarding Nephites in Europe. The feedback has been very helpful. One complaint that was repeated a few times was that the scholarship was poor...in large part decrying the lack of footnotes. I nodded each time, and intentionally let that complaint sit quietly. (I am generally a fan of footnotes.) Time for an initial response to that feedback. Here goes: http://www.candlestickstudio.com/Footnotes.html Those who have read the [initial] response referenced above: For those of you who appreciate the non-annotated version of the Book of Mormon, and/or who gravitate towards non-annotated books, what's your take on the value vs. distraction of source footnotes? Ditto please for those who believe that documentation should be the/a primary concern. Ahhh...it hasn't even been established that the claimed Nephite Civilization were even in the Americas...and now you want to move the discussion to whether or not they were in Europe?
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Ahhh...it hasn't even been established that the claimed Nephite Civilization were even in the Americas.. It's been established sufficiently for *my* needs...through correlation between the Nephite record and extensive testimony from Europe. 22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: ..and now you want to move the discussion to whether or not they were in Europe? Fair objection. Will happily resolve it. It's been about a decade since that concern has been raised, so a refresher is due. It *might* initially seem like sleight of hand to discuss Europe, but I think you'll see that there's method and fairness in the supposed madness. Want to shift the discussion to Europe? Nope. Need to? Yes, temporarily, for family-history research integrity. http://www.candlestickstudio.com/WhyEurope.html Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
Robert F. Smith Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: After reading the two recent ancient DNA papers (Sidon and Egypt) I was struck by what looks like an expansion from Mesopotamia around the time of the Jaredites. Sure enough, others are seeing the same thing. Could it be we are seeing indications of a Tower of Babel event? "It seems increasingly likely that ancient DNA has identified a massive expansion, or a series of expansions, from Mesopotamia and/or surrounds in basically all directions ... It's an interesting and important question who these likely Mesopotamian migrants and their descendants were in terms of linguistic affinities. It seems that they left a massive genetic imprint on the Near East and much of North Africa, and perhaps also Central Asia and Southeastern Europe, so they probably also left some sort of linguistic legacy. Obviously, it's highly improbable that most of them were Indo-European speakers. So if most of them weren't Indo-Europeans, then the phenomenon I'm describing here can't be related to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) expansion. Forget the idea of an West Asian linguistic hot spot spewing out different, distantly related language families, including Indo-European, via the migrations of closely related Iran_ChL-like populations over a span of a few thousand years; it's plain stupid. So who were they?" (source) Interesting he conjures up the image of a linguistic hotspot "spewing out languages" and then quickly dismisses it. But I'd say the jury is still out, and we'll learn much more as aDNA results from Mesopotamia are posted sometime this year. ...................................................................... There is strong archeological evidence for a tight pre-dynastic connection between Egypt and Mesopotamia. In this very early period we find clearcut evidence of significant long-distance contact between Mesopotamia and Egypt. As Bruce Williams observes, Quote . . . contacts with Mesopotamia are based more firmly on the striking similarity of elements that occur in both countries. These include important artistic motifs, such as a bark approaching a paneled or niched building, intertwined serpents, and paired monsters with long, intertwined necks, as well as cylinder seals and niched brick architecture. Even the development of writing may have been accelerated by Mesopotamian contacts.[1] Moreover, “intensive foreign contacts are certain” during the Predynastic Gerzean period.[2] Inside Egypt one finds, for example, characteristic mud-brick Mesopotamian architecture, Jamdat-Nasr cylinder seals, the slow pottery-wheel, incised and “decorated” ware, lapis beads, obsidian, silver, rebus script, etc., all being imported into the Nile Valley, with similar signs of diffusion appearing simultaneously along the Orontes River and in the ˁAmuq region of Syria as well as at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) on the Mediterranean coast.[3] Facades of First Dynasty tombs at Saqqara seem Mesopotamian. The same is true of recurved bows, boats (Uruk seal type), turban, long coat, and waist-band on the Predynastic Gebel el-ˁAraq knife-handle.[4] All this takes place during the fabled Egyptian “Primeval Time of the Two Lands” (pЗwt tЗwy), partially described in Book of Abraham 1:21-27, which is, incidentally, an account in line with the old theory of the Upper Egyptian Naqada II Asiatic or Semitic “Dynastic Race”[5] – possibly the elite “Followers of Horus” (šmsw Ḥr) – who may have entered Egypt at that time.[6] In any case, the late Klaus Baer supported the Naqada theory of the spread of Egyptian rule and the uniting of the Two Lands (smЗ tЗwy).[7] [1] Bruce B. Williams, “Egypt, History of (Neolithic): Neolithic to Dynasty I,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:340, citing W. Helck, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit (1987), 134-137, and H. J. Kantor in Ehrich, COWA, 3rd ed. [2] Current Anthropology, 6:156. [3] H. J. Kantor, in Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd ed., I:11-21; L. Stager, in Ehrich, ed., COWA, 3rd ed., I:27-28,31-34,40-41, II:22; Emery, Archaic Egypt, 30; E. Baumgartel, “Predynastic Egypt,” Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., I, part 1:463ff., and passim; J. Payne, Iraq, 30:58-59; L. Wooley, Digging Up the Past, 89. [4] M. E. L. Mallowan, Early Mesopotamia and Iran, 56-57. [5] P. Locavara, “Predynastic Egypt,” in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, II:194, citing the work of Helen Kantor, JNES, 11 (1952), 239-250. [6] Baumgartel, Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., I/1:463-497, and JEA, 61:28-32; G. A. Wainwright, JEA, 49:13-14,17-18; cf. JEA, 39:36ff.; Urk., IV, 86, 4; R. M. Boehmer in Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, V:295; Williams, however, rejects any supposed “dynastic race,” in Freedman, ed., ABD, II:340; a negative view shared by Arkell & Ucko in Current Anthropology, 6:145-166. They reject outside infiltration and domination. [7] Baer, 1974 BYU Education Week Lectures. Edited May 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1
Recommended Posts