Fair-skinned Ancient Peruvians - stirring the LGT/HGT pot

[hagoth7]

To expand recent LGT/HGT discussions, reconsideration of South America as their initial landing point.

Regarding South America and Lehites, what are your thoughts on South America?

1. Conquistador reports (ca. 1550) of fair-skinned natives in Peru

2. Ancient Peruvian DNA linking to Europe

3. Early 1830 and 1832 statements attributed to Joseph that Lehi landed somewhere south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) , and more specfically in South America, and specifically in Chile

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bob Crockett]

The statements about Chile were in the Book of Mormon as a footnote from the 1850s until Talmage (or was it WIdstoe) reorganized the Book of Mormon into columns in the 1920s.  What can be said of that circumstance?  That it was a bad conclusion and rightfully omitted, or that it was a good conclusion but omitted as non-essential?  It is impossible to say.

It was Joseph Smith's view that the locale for the Book of Mormon was hemispheric, but it really didn't seem all that important to him.   The Times and Seasons articles were enthusiastic about finds in South American and in the United States, but much secular press was focused on findings in MesoAmerica, so most of the enthusiasm about geography in the Church during Joseph Smith's day seemed to follow Stephens' findings in the 1830s or 40s.    

Edited July 3, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hagoth7]

54 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The statements about Chile were in the Book of Mormon as a footnote from the 1850s until Talmage (or was it WIdstoe) reorganized the Book of Mormon into columns in the 1920s.  What can be said of that circumstance?  That it was a bad conclusion and rightfully omitted, or that it was a good conclusion but omitted as non-essential?...    

Or, door number three. 

That it was an unnecessary distraction for the last century.

But is an important detail that could/should be restored to the table now, for the rising generation....

54 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It was Joseph Smith's view that the locale for the Book of Mormon was hemispheric....

...for *that* very specific reason.  To widen the stakes of Zion. 

In the generation where  knowledge of history and language and science, paired with the technology to rapidly share such things, arise to corroborate the things Joseph said of our fathers.

Edited July 3, 2017 by hagoth7

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

To expand recent LGT discussions, reconsideration of South America as their initial landing point.

Regarding South America and Lehites, what are your thoughts on South America?

1. Conquistador reports (ca. 1550) of fair-skinned natives in Peru

2. Ancient Peruvian DNA linking to Europe

3. Early 1830 and 1832 tatements attributed to Joseph that Lehi landed somewhere south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) , and more specfically in South America, and specifically in Chile

I'm of course open to it but there are lots of criteria they have to match. So far as I know no one has really been able to do that with the Peruvian model.

So far as I know this Interpreter analysis of the model still remains the best analysis: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/models-and-methods-in-book-of-mormon-geography-the-peruvian-model-as-a-test-case/

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hagoth7]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm of course open to it but there are lots of criteria they have to match. So far as I know no one has really been able to do that with the Peruvian model.

I'm not referring to a Peruvian LGT. Not interested, at all, in reducing the overall scope...just the occasional focus.

I'm referring to a hemispheric one, with an initial arrival in South America, as recorded in 1830 and 1832.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I'm not referring to a Peruvian LGT. Not interested, at all, in reducing the overall scope...just the occasional focus.

I'm referring to a hemispheric one, with an initial arrival in South America, as recorded in 1830 and 1832.

Not sure what you're asking then. The hemispheric model seems contradicted by the distances in the text itself.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

To expand recent LGT/HGT discussions, reconsideration of South America as their initial landing point.

Regarding South America and Lehites, what are your thoughts on South America?

1. Conquistador reports (ca. 1550) of fair-skinned natives in Peru

I have little doubt that Polynesians made it to S. America by at least 1000 A.D. They made it to the Gambiers and Easter Island by that time. I also would not be surprised if some Polynesians were directly from the house of Manasseh through the Australasian seafaring to Madagascar and the Comoro Islands as well as other places in Asia. 

Quote

2. Ancient Peruvian DNA linking to Europe

Show me, otherwise no.

Quote

3. Early 1830 and 1832 tatements attributed to Joseph that Lehi landed somewhere south of the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) , and more specfically in South America, and specifically in Chile

Personally, I believe early Church members almost made a hobby out of putting their words in Joseph's mouth. You will be hard-pressed to prove that Joseph Smith ever personally said or wrote any such thing. Peru was Pratt's pet idea. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're asking then. The hemispheric model seems contradicted by the distances in the text itself.

Correct.  Any model must meet certain minimal criteria.

[hagoth7]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're asking then. The hemispheric model seems contradicted by the distances in the text itself.

I'm a greenhorn/tiro when it comes to early Nephite commentary/geography, so please be kind/patient with this briefest of initial forays :

*2 Nephi 5:7 - when the rift occurred among the Lehites, and Nephites parted into "the wilderness" *for many days."

 1. How certain are we that they left on foot? When speaking of travel, does "wilderness" include travel through uncharted territory/waters by sea? (I believe from comparing 1 Nephi 18 and the detail Lehi provided about Joseph's birth in 2 Nephi 3 that since Lehi's/Sariah's greatest sorrow/tribulation was while at sea, that such a setting is where he was born...although perhaps begat prior to boarding. [And Calm, that's why I believe Joseph may well have been born at sea,, which simply requires a rethinking of "beget" from 1 Nephi 18,  also because of Lehi's mention of Joseph needing nourishment greatly while at sea and grieving for not getting it.] As part of that, why would Nephi, when parting with his brothers in order to protect others, *not* quietly sail away? Giving women, children, any sick/inform/aged a more likely swift escape. And leaving a less easy trail for their enemies to follow.

 2. How much ground can be covered in a sailboat, on a full day, taking turns resting? 100 miles, sometimes more, sometimes less. 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/TAPA/82/Speed_under_Sail_of_Ancient_Ships*.html

 3. How many days, under favorable conditions (guided by Liahona), might it take to sail from NW Chile to somewhere in closer proximity to Guatemala (assuming one believes Mulekites were within striking disance from there.)  How long would that initial northward voyage take?

Thumb to the wind, I'm guessing..."many days." 

I haven't given American geography much thought, and won't pretend there aren't several "well, what about this" verses later on. But for sailing away from his brethen, where wilderness can simply mean uncharted territory/waters...that interpretation and mode of travel dramatically widens the circle of how far that initial party could reach. 

Thoughts? Impressions? Tomatoes? (preferably with an olive or two, a wee bit of oil/vinegar/seasoning, and mebbe a small scoop of pasta)?

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

(so-called European DNA in ancient Peru...)

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Show me, otherwise no. 

Driving with Missouri plates? 

mtDNA haplogroup U2e1 from ancient Peruvian skull - a type not otherwise said to be Amerindian, but instead known among the...(pregnant pause)...proto-Germanic peoples  (and proto-Balto-Slavic).

The three skulls are reportedly on display in Juan Navarro Museum in Peru. .

DNA analysis reportedly done at Lakehead University Lab in Canada.

i recall reading about it in the news last year.   A reputable source from long ago where the abstract says that three of the 52 Andean samples were *not* from among the 4 normal Amerindian mtDNA haplotypes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11096276

And the four unusual sources from which I extracted the details about Juan Navarro Museum,, U2e1 and Lakehead University Lab. Each of those data points can at least be fact-checked elsewhere. (The article I read a year ago no longer seems to exist.) 

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia2/ciencia_craneos12.htm

https://metacenterchicago.com/2017/03/28/elongated-skulls-peru-dna-results/

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/breaking-new-dna-testing-2000-year-old-elongated-paracas-skulls-changes-020914

https://hiddenincatours.com/dna-results-elongated-skulls-paracas-part-4-4-nobility/

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

10 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

(so-called European DNA in ancient Peru...)

...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11096276

And the four unusual sources from which I extracted the details about Juan Navarro Museum,, U2e1 and Lakehead University Lab. Each of those data points can at least be fact-checked elsewhere. (The article I read a year ago no longer seems to exist.) 

If those data points hold up under further scrutiny, and I believe the most important one will, such genetic outliers (there are others) encourage us to at least rethink who some so-called proto-Germanic peoples actually were, and where they actually came...   :::ahem:::   :::coughNephite/Ammonitesscough:::

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Summary:

• Earliest accounts place Lehite landing in South America/Chile (1830 &1832)
• Nephi initially parting with his brethren via sailboat dramatically expands the perimeter of that "many days'" journey
• Later generations of Nephites returned to resettle
• Conquistadors (ca. 1550 AD) report fair-skinned natives in Peru
• 2,000 year-old Peruvian skull (contemporary with Hagoth) has U2e1 DNA (fx. proto-Germanic)

Either there is method to this madness...

Or someone's all up in the night... ;0)

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

..

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[Alan]

I am a firm believer in a north American heartland/great lakes location for the Book of Mormon events.

The evidence just fits better than any other theory.

I'm quite sure there were light skinned people in Peru. But does that mean they were really fair skinned or just lighter when compared with others in the region?

[Bob Crockett]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  Any model must meet certain minimal criteria.

And then there's Sorenson, who claims that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land a Nephite can, according to the text of the Book of Mormon, can cross in a day or so.  That is, 120 miles of swamp (with a band of mountains) it took people in the 19th century weeks to cross.  Which can't be navigated by boat or crossed by foot, really.  

Which Sorenson places a huge amount of trust in for his model; without it he has little. 

The east-west Isthmus of Niagara (50 miles) really fits the description of the Book of Mormon, although I think the whole attempt to pin it is silliness.  

[hagoth7]

12 hours ago, Alan said:

I am a firm believer in a north American heartland/great lakes location for the Book of Mormon events.

The evidence just fits better than any other theory.

I have nothing against MesoAmerica, but haven't (yet) been an advocate for that region. But as a newborn HGT advocate (as of last night), I just might add MesoAmerica to my thin-broth Nephite/Lehite soup by EOB today. :0)

There is *a lot* that I really like about Nephites in North America, including several prophecies, and especially hundreds of deeply-impressive Algonquian language bridges to germanic (Norwegian dialects, documented at length in multiple volumes by Reid T. Sherwin). Sherwin posits that Native Americans learned Norse from Viking settlers. Possible. I suspect instead that around 2,070 years ago, north-europeans instead learned Algonquin (and Semitic) from Hagoth-ferried Nephites/Ammonites, the true origins of germanic (and Yiddish). But I will gladly step back and let linguists slug that lovefest out, to decide which direction (eastward and/or westward) the languages spread, and which timeframe(s) best lends itself to explain the language bridges. (Creating a separate thread for the Algonquian/Germanic Semitic/Yiddish discussion now, so please port any commentary relating to that language bridge there.) 

Then there's Cherokee DNA, and the meaning/significance I happen to draw from the name Viniland/Vinland (relating to Lombard origins contemporary with Hagoth), and of course, the mighty Micmac:

And then there's Stubbs' fun work that basically bridges Mesoamerica *and* the southwestern U.S.A. 

That said, I emerged from my own studies last night as a brand-spankin'-new HGT (hemispheric) advocate. Which currently appreciates evidence from Chile/Peru, *and* North America, and is carefully considering evidence for MesoAmerica. We'll see if the HGT framework survives the heat of the day.

Any reason why/how Lehites couldn't have migrated from Chile, to *somewhere* significantly north (with Zeniff types later backtracking southward). And then from the area Zeniff had *originally* departed, even further northward, becoming experts in cement. 

12 hours ago, Alan said:

...I'm quite sure there were light skinned people in Peru. But does that mean they were really fair skinned or just lighter when compared with others in the region?

You decide: 

1. For example, written of the Chachapoya in Peru, by Cieza de Leon, ca. 1550, after returning from South America:"They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen in the Indies..." You could interpret that to mean that such means dark, although less dark then others.

2. And again, then there's European DNA discovered in Peru, dating ca. 2,000 years ago (specifically U2e1, otherwise known to be proto-Germanic and proto-Balto-Slavic, the latter of which I believe means Goths ["Gothones" per map.) So, with the claim of European DNA in ancient Peru contemporary with Hagoth, what are we then to make of Cieza's description? 

Thoughts?

Edited July 5, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

And then there's Sorenson, who claims that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land a Nephite can, according to the text of the Book of Mormon, can cross in a day or so.  That is, 120 miles of swamp (with a band of mountains) it took people in the 19th century weeks to cross.  Which can't be navigated by boat or crossed by foot, really.  

Which Sorenson places a huge amount of trust in for his model; without it he has little. 

The east-west Isthmus of Niagara (50 miles) really fits the description of the Book of Mormon, although I think the whole attempt to pin it is silliness.  

What puzzles me is that you deliberately ignore my previous discussion of that on this board specifically replying to you.  Why are you fearful of coming to grips with the hard data? -- which falsifies your statements here.  By carefully ignoring (1) what the Conquistadores themselves said and did, (2) the archeology of the region, as well as (3) the context of the BofM on that geographical issue, you can of course come to your convenient strawman version of reality.  Are you just being cantankerous, Bob, or do you have a love affair with nihilism?  So hard to tell what you are really up to.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

You decide: 

1. For example, written of the Chachapoya in Peru, by Cieza de Leon, ca. 1550, after returning from South America:"They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen in the Indies..." ...

2. And again, then there's European DNA discovered in Peru, dating ca. 2,000 years ago (specifically U2e1, otherwise known to be proto-Germanic and proto-Balto-Slavic, the latter of which I believe means Goths ["Gothones" per map.) So, with the claim of European DNA in ancient Peru contemporary with Hagoth, what are we then to make of Cieza's description? 

Thoughts?

What came to mind this morning when reflecting further on Cieza's words.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.15?lang=eng#p14

 

(Compare 2 Nephi 3,

D&C 2,

and D&C 3)

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[Anakin7]

I am married to a Peruvian.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Dept Grace

Anakin7

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And then there's Sorenson, who claims that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the narrow neck of land a Nephite can, according to the text of the Book of Mormon, can cross in a day or so.  That is, 120 miles of swamp (with a band of mountains) it took people in the 19th century weeks to cross.  Which can't be navigated by boat or crossed by foot, really.  

Which Sorenson places a huge amount of trust in for his model; without it he has little. 

The east-west Isthmus of Niagara (50 miles) really fits the description of the Book of Mormon, although I think the whole attempt to pin it is silliness.  

I read a book which posited that model. Actually the narrowest part of the Niagra Isthmus is right at 30-32 miles. However, the Niagra is far too large of a river to cross repeatedly as is described in the BoM. The Niagra River is one of the largest in the U.S. It is apparent that the Sidon was easily crossed on foot without waiting boats.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

..It is apparent that the Sidon was easily crossed on foot without waiting boats.

Easily crossed?

Anything like the Red Sea?

Or the Jordan?

 

On another (or similar) note, the early Germans were renowned for crossing substantial deep rivers, fully armed.

[hagoth7]

4 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Easily crossed?

....the early Germans were renowned for crossing substantial deep rivers, fully armed.

Of those presumed to be the emperor's personal retinue, or horse guards, reminiscent of Ammon.

"So excellently, indeed, had his soldiery been trained that the calvary of the Batavians, as they were called, swam the Ister with their arms. Seeing all this, the barbarians stood in terror of the Romans, they employed Hadrian as as an arbitrator of their differences."

Dio Cassius Liber LXIX 9.6

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Easily crossed?

Anything like the Red Sea?

Or the Jordan?

 

On another (or similar) note, the early Germans were renowned for crossing substantial deep rivers, fully armed.

And no doubt able to walk on the bottom. Yes, the Jordan is a very crossable river. You should try it. 

And no not like the Red Sea - if you will recall God parted that for the Israelites - somehow, I don't think He did the same for the advancing Lamanites.  You may have noticed that in the land of Zarahemla, just about every time the Lamanites advance they are crossing the Sidon. The Nephites cross it too. It probably wasn't more than 5 ft deep. Armies wearing armor are simply not crossing the Niagra without drowning or using boats. Where it has no rapids, it is 1 km+ wide.

[hagoth7]

22 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

..."So excellently, indeed, had his soldiery been trained that the calvary of the Batavians...

Dio Cassius Liber LXIX 9.6

And the Batavians were neighbors, allies, and kin of none other than...the seafaring Cana-nefates on their west.

To their south, the Tungri/Tencteri, meaning "the faithful" in earliest companionship with the Usipi/Usipites and Sugambri/Sicambri, the first to be called German (Hermano/Hermana).

Edited July 4, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What puzzles me is that you deliberately ignore my previous discussion of that on this board specifically replying to you.  Why are you fearful of coming to grips with the hard data? -- which falsifies your statements here.  By carefully ignoring (1) what the Conquistadores themselves said and did, (2) the archeology of the region, as well as (3) the context of the BofM on that geographical issue, you can of course come to your convenient strawman version of reality.  Are you just being cantankerous, Bob, or do you have a love affair with nihilism?  So hard to tell what you are really up to.

Hah hah; more ad hominem!  That is all I get out of you.  I love it.  I don't deliberately ignore anything; your prior discussion was not supportable.   Heights scare me.  Not narrow necks of land.  I carefully ignore nothing .  I am not being cantankerous; my views are shared by many.   I don't know the meaning of the word "nihilism."  

The reality is that even if the isthmus were a hard-packed trail 120 miles long, it is not the sort of thing that a relatively fit human can traverse in a day and a half.  It can be done by only extreme athletes, like the ultrarunner l am.  I recently covered 108 miles in 31 hours on basically dry jeep roads through the northern Salt Flats (which had mountain ranges to cross; 15 miles of it was muddy) in cool weather and I was not competent to do much more after that for about 5 days. . 

Dr. Sorenson concludes that the “narrow neck of land” reference, among other places, in Alma 22 must be an isthmus  and further that “we safely assume” that the isthmus divides the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans  even though the Book of Mormon says no such thing.  “The 120-mile-wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec is just within the range of plausibility we established for the width of the “narrow neck.”   But, as Dr. Sorenson says, and as quoting from the Book of Mormon, the “narrow neck” was “only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite . . . ,”  indicating that the editor of the Book of Mormon intended to convey the thought that the “narrow neck” was very narrow indeed and “only” something of little consequence.   Given that the 120-mile span of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is filled with unnavigable rivers and malarial swamps,  Mesoamerican theorists have spent some time attempting to defend Dr. Sorenson’s theory.   Dr. Sorenson, for instance, makes the "out there" argument that  some Mexican foot runners can run 500 miles in six days.  This feat must be the peak of human endurance.  It is not the ordinary exploit of “a Nephite.”  Mexican runner had roads in the Aztec empire.  The didn't have swamps to ford.  On some of my more extreme overland excursions, it has taken me a couple of hours or more to ford difficult rivers, and I've had to carry a twenty-pound climbing rope to do it, particularly when it has been more than one person making the crossing with gear.   Michael R. Ash has supposed that the Book of Mormon meant something other than the width of an isthmus, but rather the width between two geographical mounts or political borders within the isthmus.   Thus, Ash seeks to salvage the Sorenson model to changing an isthmus to something that is not an isthmus which happens to be within an isthmus.  Ash's argument could simply be made without the need for an isthmus. This speculation heaped upon speculation, when the Book of Mormon does not attempt to say that the narrow neck divided two seas, demonstrates the futility of discussion about Book of Mormon geography.

According to the account in Don Jose Garay, Survey of the Isthmus of Tehuatepec (Ackerman & Co, London 1944), the government of Mexico commissioned a survey of the Isthmus.  Garay's nine-month survey is contained in this book.   Many parts of the northern part of the isthmus are impenetrable swamp and jungle.  One cannot simply oar a boat through the Everglades.   Although Garay discusses the prospect of navigation, he notes that the rivers are not navigable as they approach the hills and are difficult or impossible to ford at places.   The study also recounts Cortes' unhappy experience in the area as he tried to use the isthmus as a means to access lower California.  You have previously argued in the past that the traverse can be done when waters are high and rivers are fast-moving.  I have never seen any treatises confirming this supposition.

The world record for a barefoot 24-hour run is 136.98 miles on an indoor track.  Scott Douglas, “New Record for 24-Hour Barefoot Run,” in Runners World & Running, Aug. 11, 2014, published at http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/new-record-for-24-hour-barefoot-run, accessed January 1, 2015.  The world record for a 24-hour run in the latest shoe technology on a track is held by Yiannis Kouros, whom I have competed against.  Kouros covered 303.506 km in 24 hours, or about 188 miles.  “Yiannis Kouros,” at en.wickipedia.org, accessed January 1, 2015.  These 24-hour races provide bounteous feasts and medical aid every one mile or so.  They do not require the runner to carry provisions nor stop to look for water or food.  These 24 hour runs are almost always completely flat on a groomed running course or asphalt.

And, as I have pointed out, it appears to me that this narrow neck of land theory is the basic foundation for Dr. Sorenson's suppositions.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Bob Crockett