Bows in the Book of Mormon

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, PeterPear said:

According to the Sorensonites and the Gardnerites, the Nephites were idiots and everything had to have been brought to the New World or they never had it. INVENTIONS were beyond the knowledge of Lehi and Mulek's descendants.

I don't know why you would say that. However the inventions of significant new technology among ancients is much rarer than you seem to think. The main concern is archaeological evidence for such things. But it's very misinformed to assume that because inventions we take for granted seem obvious that somehow people are stupid if they don't come up with them.

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Like i said, I'm addressing the problem as presented and stated in the OP: “the problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period...”

Fair enough. I certainly agree that art should be cautious. I think the issue of figuring out what the words mean. It is interesting though that Jarom doesn't mention bows. Whether that's significant or not isn't clear. But it is possible that by this period, the Nephites had lost their bow technology. Unfortunately since we don't have the 116 pages most of the history of the pre-Benjamin Nephites is unclear.

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, trained anthropologists such as John Sorenson (Mormon's Codex, 413,415) and Brant Gardner have already cited non-Mormon experts who put the bow & arrow as present in Mexico already by the time of Christ.

I didn't have time to get to this last night. I checked Sorenson and both he and Gardner appear to largely be following Hamblin. So it doesn't appear they've done much independent research on this. I'm happy to be wrong if you're aware of different data. Perhaps Brant will chime in. The main reference appears to be Paul Tolstory in "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico" in vol 9 of Handbook of Middle American Indians. The relevant section doesn't seem quite as definitive as portrayed although it's undeniable the author favors these as arrows for a bow. Since I know it's hard to find stuff in Google (it took me a while to get to the right page) here's the text along with illustration. The latter is particularly worthwhile since the picture in question wasn't shown in any of the articles by Hamblin, Sorenson or Gardner. (Note the classic period is roughly from 200 - 1000 AD)

To clarify, since most of the arguments for bows comes down to this Tolstoy article we should note that it's from 1971 originally. The main overview of the diffusion view of the bow and arrow is "Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America" by John Blitz.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble
Clarify date

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that an "atlal" is basically a spear (a word that was presumably familiar to Joseph Smith).

The second problem is that "bows" are almost always mentioned with "arrows."  I know we need to be creative when it comes to figuring out how to fit the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica (or anywhere), but is it too creative to suggest that what the Book of Mormon describes as "bows and arrows" (and "quivers") was actually a spear-type object?

I'm not sure it's fair to say an atlal is just a spear. It's a device for throwing very fast arrow like objects. These can vary in size for darts up to longer near spear like projectiles. One reason why atlals continued to be used even when there's uncontroversial use of bows and arrows is that they apparently had a higher velocity thereby penetrating further. Important what armor like material had to be dealt with. The main downside was that they were hard to be trained with compared to a bow.

So far as I know they weren't used in the middle eastern area although it's not clear why. Probably because the bow and arrow had already replaced the atlal by then. They are found in southern Europe prior to around 10,000 BC.

Anyway, if you have a word for bow and arrow and no word for spear-thrower I think using bow to describe them wouldn't be unusual. I tried to find how the spanish first described atlals but couldn't find much. Often for other weapons they used the common terms for what was functionally similar among the Mexicans, such as sword for macuahuitl. 

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Fair enough. I certainly agree that art should be cautious. I think the issue of figuring out what the words mean. It is interesting though that Jarom doesn't mention bows. Whether that's significant or not isn't clear. But it is possible that by this period, the Nephites had lost their bow technology. Unfortunately since we don't have the 116 pages most of the history of the pre-Benjamin Nephites is unclear.

That is the first thing I thought of (they had lost the technology, perhaps due to where they settled), and then perhaps they temporarily entered a covenant not to use them as a sign that they trusted the Lord to defend them (I've understood some to say that the bow itself is a sign of a covenant; the rainbow being the Warrior God's bow that the Lord set down in the clouds as a truce with humanity); or simply lost the skill (being farmers and not hunters like the Lamanites) or found the use of the bow culturally beneath them (Enos 1:20)... but in any case it seems they started to use them again by Mosiah 7 as the outside threat became fiercer.

Edited June 20, 2017 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is the first thing I thought of (they had lost the technology, perhaps due to where they settled), and then perhaps they temporarily entered a covenant not to use them as a sign that they trusted the Lord to defend them (I've understood some to say that the bow itself is a sign of a covenant; the rainbow being the Warrior God's bow that the Lord set down in the clouds as a truce with humanity); or simply lost the skill (being farmers and not hunters like the Lamanites) or found the use of the bow culturally beneath them (Enos 1:20)... but in any case it seems they started to use them again by Mosiah 7 as the outside threat became fiercer.

The gap is interesting and may be a good reason to not assume when it returns it's the same device. Although Enos 1:20 does indicate the Lamanites were skilled with the bow so it's possible that a linguistic shift has already occurred.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The gap is interesting and may be a good reason to not assume when it returns it's the same device. Although Enos 1:20 does indicate the Lamanites were skilled with the bow so it's possible that a linguistic shift has already occurred.

Linguistics certainly allows for lack of physical evidence of what might be conceptualized as the bow, and in both timeline directions.

[clarkgoble]

Just an addition to that prior comment. I found a more recent article on bows and atlals. This was a thesis from 2012 "Maya Use and Prevalence of the Atlatl: Projectile Point Classification Function Analysis from Chichen Itza, Tikal and Caracol" Since it's a masters thesis I'd expect reasonable research of the literature as well as a good knowledge of the field consensus. Here's the relevant section (page 30).

Quote

In the Maya region, there is still a debate regarding when the bow-and-arrow complex made its first appearance (see Aoyama 2005:300; Hassig 1992:162). The technique of complex arguments based on iconographic representations and archaeological evidence, which includes classification function analysis of projectile points, have been applied to the bow-and-arrow (Aoyama 2005). There is certainty that the bow was used during the Late Postclassic (Hassig 1992:162; Porter 1981:407; Rice 1986:340) (and probably before); yet, interestingly, iconography of this period still depicts the atlatl (LeBlanc 2003:283). The lack of bow-and-arrow iconography confirms that elite Maya warriors of the Postclassic never accepted the bow-and- arrow as a symbolic weapon of power. Even the conquering Spaniards feared the atlatl more than the bow because of the prevailing force and kinetic energy of the atlatl that could easily pierce Spanish armor (Raymond 1986:173).

Evidence of small projectile points possibly indicate that the bow was around in the Middle Preclassic Period in Mesoamerica, but there is no substantial evidence of iconography or artifacts (other than small projectile points) to confirm this idea (Hassig 1992:197). There are however, depictions of atlatls, spears, clubs, and slings in sculptures, murals, and on ceramics (Hassig 1992:197).

Classic Period Maya art is virtually absent of bow or arrow depictions (Aoyama 2005:294). Prismatic blade points account for a very small portion of obsidian assemblages in the Classic Maya Lowland sites; instead, spear or dart points seem to have been more integral to Classic Maya warfare (Aoyama 2005:294). A Terminal Classic Period introduction of the bow by the Chontal Maya (Rice 1986:340) or by Mexican mercenaries from Tabasco (Porter 1981:407) has been assumed.

With other Maya sites, such as Santa Rita Corozal, evincing a prevalent occurrence of small projectile points (D. Chase and A. Chase 2002:35), it is hard to deny the bow was a large part of increased militarization after the Terminal Classic Period. Winning and losing a war was shared by not only the elite but also the general populace as well (A. Chase and D. Chase 1989:16). The bow could have changed military strategies by requiring defensive walls; its use could have also decreased the power of the elite, partially explaining the destabilization of elite control systems that is seen in the archaeological record at the end of the Terminal Classic period (LeBlanc 2003:283). Either new sophisticated military strategies involving the atlatl or the introduction of the bow could have been key reasons for a restructuring of Maya centralized elite control. Regardless of the key weapon causing political change, effects of warfare seem to have been more extensive than previously believed (A. Chase and D. Chase 1989:16). 

Kazuo Aoyama seems to be the source everyone quotes on the subject for recent times.  "Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear, dart, and arrow points of Aguateca and Copan" Unfortunately most of his discussion is classic and post-classic eras. However he says (page 298) that there's no evidence in the preclassical period. Admittedly he's not covering the whole region though.

My main point with these is to given an indication of what consensus is. I'm obviously not an anthropologist nor archaeologist with a specialty in Mexico of the era in question. Yet if there was consensus of preclassical bows and arrows we'd expect it to appear in this thesis or this oft cited article on classic Mayan weapons.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Quote

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that an "atlal" is basically a spear (a word that was presumably familiar to Joseph Smith).

The second problem is that "bows" are almost always mentioned with "arrows."  I know we need to be creative when it comes to figuring out how to fit the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica (or anywhere), but is it too creative to suggest that what the Book of Mormon describes as "bows and arrows" (and "quivers") was actually a spear-type object?

I'm not sure it's fair to say an atlal is just a spear. It's a device for throwing very fast arrow like objects. These can vary in size for darts up to longer near spear like projectiles. One reason why atlals continued to be used even when there's uncontroversial use of bows and arrows is that they apparently had a higher velocity thereby penetrating further. Important what armor like material had to be dealt with. The main downside was that they were hard to be trained with compared to a bow.

So far as I know they weren't used in the middle eastern area although it's not clear why. Probably because the bow and arrow had already replaced the atlal by then. They are found in southern Europe prior to around 10,000 BC.

Anyway, if you have a word for bow and arrow and no word for spear-thrower I think using bow to describe them wouldn't be unusual. I tried to find how the spanish first described atlals but couldn't find much. Often for other weapons they used the common terms for what was functionally similar among the Mexicans, such as sword for macuahuitl. 

A lot of the confusion here on terminology could be allayed if we go back to Jarom 8 "the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin," and base our discussion on those three distinct weapons, all of which were used in Mesoamerica -- as discussed at  https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-does-archaeology-reveal-about-warfare-during-early-nephite-times .  To see how such weapons were used in the late post-classic, one should see Mel Gibson's film, "Apocalypto."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKVgF2hA0Q8 . 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of the confusion here on terminology could be allayed if we go back to Jarom 8 "the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin," and base our discussion on those three distinct weapons, all of which were used in Mesoamerica -- as discussed at  https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-does-archaeology-reveal-about-warfare-during-early-nephite-times .  

The key issue, as I see it, is that the bow isn't pre-classical in an uncontroversial fashion. Now as I said I don't think this is really a problem if the symbol for "bow" on the plates was used to designate "atlal." (Here not committing myself to a model of Book of Mormon plate writing since I don't find any of the existing models satisfactory) So "arrow" in this case likely doesn't refer to the bow and arrow of later eras. That's what I meant earlier about using Jarom as tied to the later references in say Alma.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The key issue, as I see it, is that the bow isn't pre-classical in an uncontroversial fashion. Now as I said I don't think this is really a problem if the symbol for "bow" on the plates was used to designate "atlal." (Here not committing myself to a model of Book of Mormon plate writing since I don't find any of the existing models satisfactory) So "arrow" in this case likely doesn't refer to the bow and arrow of later eras. That's what I meant earlier about using Jarom as tied to the later references in say Alma.

Nonsense.  There is no textual or practical reason for confusing arrow with atatl.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  There is no textual or practical reason for confusing arrow with atatl.

Confusing? What do you mean? The argument would be linguistic drift the same as how sword represented a macuahuitl. Why would a bow and arrow be different? Again I'm open to arguments but simply saying nonsense doesn't move the discussion forward. This seems a relatively uncontroversial view of linguistic drift that both Sorenson and Gardner make extensive use of and that is attested in history (such as with the Spanish encounter of American items they were unfamiliar with)

The alternative is dealing with the lack of uncontroversial evidence for bows in the relevant time period. Again, I'm open to solid evidence of pre-classical bows, but we basically only have a 50 year old article which doesn't appear to have persuaded many. Most of the cites are by Mormon apologists who are in turn largely depending upon Bill Hamblin's article.

The problem is that if we find unambiguous evidence for bows later why don't we for this early period if they were so crucial for warfare? No one has adequately explained that. Further as I noted even Tolstory notes the ambiguous nature of looking at the heads from pre-classical time. To requote, "the contrast [in size] is less marked" with his main argument being shape which doesn't really lead to the conclusions you want. There's also that graffiti but even Tolstory notes it is "far from conclusive."

I'm certainly not opposed to there being pre-classical bows but the evidence isn't exactly compelling.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The gap is interesting and may be a good reason to not assume when it returns it's the same device. Although Enos 1:20 does indicate the Lamanites were skilled with the bow so it's possible that a linguistic shift has already occurred.

Inventing linguistic shifts too facile a solution to imaginary problems.  One should first take the text at face value.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Confusing? What do you mean? The argument would be linguistic drift the same as how sword represented a macuahuitl. Why would a bow and arrow be different?.............................................

We have the fact that the Conquistadores termed the macuahuitl a "sword."  That is not theoretical linguistic drift.  Ethnography is not linguistics.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have the fact that the Conquistadores termed the macuahuitl a "sword."  That is not theoretical linguistic drift.  Ethnography is not linguistics.

Not sure what you are saying. If the referent of a term changes then that's linguistic drift. At least as I was taught in my philosophy of language classes. Maybe ethnographers use a different terminology. I'm happy to use whatever terminology you'd prefer.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Inventing linguistic shifts too facile a solution to imaginary problems.  One should first take the text at face value.

It's not an imaginary problem though. Despite your saying, "the notion that anyone still believes that the bow & arrow were introduced to Mesoamerica in the late pre-classic is laughable," that appears to be false. Indeed I couldn't find any recent evidence of people writing in peer reviewed journals taking that position let alone it being the majority opinion.

The linguistic drift to me offers a compelling explanation for horses, swords and many other things. About the only problem it doesn't explain is metal work.

Even if you personally believe there are bows in pre-classical times, from an apologetic perspective I think we have to deal with what the mainstream archaeological belief is. If only because that's what people with questions will want.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have some evidence that the consensus is a much earlier bow and arrow?  I confess from doing searches that's not the indication I see at all.

I'd suggest attending annual meetings of the archeologists specializing in Mesoamerica and discussing that with them (Univ of Texas, Wayne State Univ, etc.).  And since he is cited in one of your posts, you might want to be aware that Steven LeBlanc states that there is no consensus, even though he shares your late timeline on introduction of the bow & arrow from Asia (he is writing based on info available in 2002 -- in Brown & Stanton, eds., Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare [AltaMira, 2003], 282).  LeBlanc also cites claims of earlier introduction from Mabry 1997 and Nassaney & Pyle 1999.  The issue if far from settled, and none of those non-Mormon scholars is even considering the BofM claim that the bow & arrow was brought by a very small group from Israel-Arabia.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not an imaginary problem though. Despite your saying, "the notion that anyone still believes that the bow & arrow were introduced to Mesoamerica in the late pre-classic is laughable," that appears to be false. Indeed I couldn't find any recent evidence of people writing in peer reviewed journals taking that position let alone it being the majority opinion.

Sorry, my bad.  I misspoke myself.  I was trying to reflect your late post-classic claims.  I apologize if I misread or misunderstood you.

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The linguistic drift to me offers a compelling explanation for horses, swords and many other things. About the only problem it doesn't explain is metal work.

As I have been trying to point out to you, horses and swords do not entail theoretical linguistic drift.  Both are ethnographic.  These terms were being used by the Aztecs (horse/tapir) and Conquistadores in historical, recorded sources.  One can extrapolate from such actual instances to more theoretical drift, if one wishes, but it is inappropriate to claim those as instances of drift.  They are direct equivalents made in real time.

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Even if you personally believe there are bows in pre-classical times, from an apologetic perspective I think we have to deal with what the mainstream archaeological belief is. If only because that's what people with questions will want.

Personal belief and apologetics have nothing to do with this issue.  Neither of us knows whether there were bows & arrows in pre-classic Mesoamerica.  There is some evidence indicating their presence, but not enough to carry the day with most non-Mormon archeologists -- who likewise dismiss the BofM out of hand.  In such instances, other evidence has to be brought to bear on the general historicity of the BofM -- not as an apologetic issue, but as a matter for factual (forensic) inquiry.  It is always best to make a dispassionate assessment of the available evidence, and let it speak for itself.

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you are saying. If the referent of a term changes then that's linguistic drift. At least as I was taught in my philosophy of language classes. Maybe ethnographers use a different terminology. I'm happy to use whatever terminology you'd prefer.

Theoretical linguistic drift is not actual drift.  Positing theoretical drift misses the point that actual, written (ethnographic) sources have the equivalent terms.  That is a matter of translation of languages, not linguistic drift.

[champatsch]

Is the following inaccurate (from Wikipedia)?

Quote

The bow and arrow is a projectile weapon system (a bow with arrows) that predates recorded history and is common to most cultures.

* * *

After the end of the last glacial period, use of the bow seems to have spread to every inhabited continent, including the New World, except for Australia.

 

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have been trying to point out to you, horses and swords do not entail theoretical linguistic drift.  Both are ethnographic.  These terms were being used by the Aztecs (horse/tapir) and Conquistadores in historical, recorded sources.  One can extrapolate from such actual instances to more theoretical drift, if one wishes, but it is inappropriate to claim those as instances of drift.  They are direct equivalents made in real time.0

It shows a pattern. After all the Conquistadores weren't Nephites and so the word choice of spanish words tells us nothing about the Book of Mormon beyond the principle that words are applied to new referents when there's not an existing word to use. Again this is the point that both Sorenson and Gardner make. Particularly the latter since his argument is part of a wider argument for a loose translation largely adopting KJV language even when it is misleading. Given that there is no KJV term for an atlal I think you dismiss drift far too readily.

Quote

Personal belief and apologetics have nothing to do with this issue.  Neither of us knows whether there were bows & arrows in pre-classic Mesoamerica.  There is some evidence indicating their presence, but not enough to carry the day with most non-Mormon archeologists -- who likewise dismiss the BofM out of hand.  In such instances, other evidence has to be brought to bear on the general historicity of the BofM -- not as an apologetic issue, but as a matter for factual (forensic) inquiry.  It is always best to make a dispassionate assessment of the available evidence, and let it speak for itself.

To my mind the apologetic issues are the main ones. That is when a critic (and they do) point to the problem of bows as an anachronism in the Book of Mormon pointing to a 50 year old article that apparently convinced few in the field is not a good response. It just isn't. Further to display pictures from a millennia later as representative of the main Book of Mormon narrative from Mosiah through Helaman seems misleading at best.

Now if we ignore the apologetic issues and question the factual ones we're left with the abundance of evidence being against bows and arrows but very good reasons to think other items work as well.

Edited June 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd suggest attending annual meetings of the archeologists specializing in Mesoamerica and discussing that with them (Univ of Texas, Wayne State Univ, etc.).  And since he is cited in one of your posts, you might want to be aware that Steven LeBlanc states that there is no consensus, even though he shares your late timeline on introduction of the bow & arrow from Asia (he is writing based on info available in 2002 -- in Brown & Stanton, eds., Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare [AltaMira, 2003], 282).  LeBlanc also cites claims of earlier introduction from Mabry 1997 and Nassaney & Pyle 1999.  The issue if far from settled, and none of those non-Mormon scholars is even considering the BofM claim that the bow & arrow was brought by a very small group from Israel-Arabia.

Well as a practical matter that's not going to happen. I'll look into those references later tonight and perhaps emails him if I can find his email. 

[mfbukowski]

I have incontrovertible evidence also that Nephites wore bow ties and Arrow shirts to church on Sunday morning. I remember that clearly.

I never cared for them much though.

Especially those short sleeved white shirts and hairy arms.  Of course they were those converts who escaped Ammon.  But they never went together with the feathers in the headresses.

Edited June 20, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And since he is cited in one of your posts, you might want to be aware that Steven LeBlanc states that there is no consensus, even though he shares your late timeline on introduction of the bow & arrow from Asia (he is writing based on info available in 2002 -- in Brown & Stanton, eds., Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare [AltaMira, 2003], 282).  LeBlanc also cites claims of earlier introduction from Mabry 1997 and Nassaney & Pyle 1999.  The issue if far from settled, and none of those non-Mormon scholars is even considering the BofM claim that the bow & arrow was brought by a very small group from Israel-Arabia.

Here's the relevant paragraph from LeBlanc. Amazon had the relevant page for display.  I wish the forum let you determine width of images - it seems to scale the image to the full width whether you want it to or not. Anyway the lack of consensus appears to be over what period from 200-800 AD it should be dated and not whether it is in the pre-classical period.

Mabry is Jonathan B Mabry's Archaelogical Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any non-paywalled versions of the paper. Judging by what I could see though this seems more talking about Arizona and is not talking about the pre-classical mesoAmerican area.

Nassaney and Pyle put an earlier date but not one into the pre-classical era of Mexico. That said they do suggest extremely early bows in the Ohio region and the eastern US. Most of the article is discussing finds from from after 100 AD (these are the "much earlier" finds most were discussing). They also provide a handy spreadsheet of the data. 

You'll note all those time periods are well after the pre-Christian era in the Book of Mormon.

Edit: Apparently there's a hard limit on how many images you can upload. I put the tables in a post at my blog along with the other images in this thread. I'll add to that post as discussion here proceeds. Main take away is that we're mainly talking either very narrow use thousands of years ago that didn't diffuse or data within the last 2000 years. So they area disputing the dates, but not in a form useful for the Book of Mormon that I can see.

Again I'm completely open to peer reviewed papers showing a date relevant for say Jarom or Enos passages. But from what I could see only the fairly dated Tolstory article even suggests dates in the relevant time frame. And his views don't appear to have persuaded many that I can see.

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by clarkgoble
Added link to 2cd table

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I wish the forum let you determine width of images - it seems to scale the image to the full width whether you want it to or not. 

Edit: Apparently there's a hard limit on how many images you can upload. 

You can usually get around the upload limits by pasting the image URL (if you have it) directly into the post, and then you can adjust the size by double-clicking the image preview, which pulls up a modal box with some options. 

Thanks for going straight to the sources, and sharing them.