Scientists find massive society

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

This brings me back to the days when one of the proofs against the BOM was that there just weren't enough people for as many deaths as the BOM claimed. And one more anti-BOM defense bites the dust. 

I find it interesting that the cries for proof still ascend but not once have I ever seen these critics acknowledge how many of their talking points have been quietly dropped, never to be admitted to again. I still remember the ZLMB days when they were insisting that their were no great civilizations when the Nephites arrived, it all happened later. Then the timeline changed.  I've said this for a long time, somebody should be keeping track of all of their oops! because their entire premise rests on their blind faith that the discovering has all been done. And they do not admit to what they used to insist was proof against the BOM.

I agree. Its interesting to watch over time as the things they said prove it false slowly disappear

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Since they made children’s toys with the axle and wheel, I think it’s absurd to assume they didn’t use the wheel on a larger scale, just because it hasn’t been documented yet.

Oops! Time for a science break. 

Think toys with wheels. Build a Lego toy with wheels. Do you need to grease the wheels? No. Plastic on plastic holds up pretty good for kids play.

Think clay toys like those pictured. Looks like they have wooden sticks for axles. Do they need grease for the wheels? Porbably not.

Now build a full size four wheeled wagon. Let me know how well the carts holds up for loads with wooden axles, and wooden hubs. Different types of wood, with varying wear strengths are needed, but metals for axles or wheel loops were not invented. Neither is there evidence that dried leather, then greased was used to hold either the axle r attach ti the frame,

Moving from a toy to a full sized cart is more than just increasing in size. 

[CA Steve]

I am admittedly unfamiliar with John Sorenson's work. So my question assumes that we are looking at a different area here than where Dr Sorenson has proposed for BoM locations. But let's say these new areas exhibited the same sort of evidence that Dr Sorenson uses for his work, wouldn't the proposed existence of two different locations for BoM lands indicate a problem with how the evidence is being interpreted?  

I mean if the evidence can be made to fit multiple locations I don't think that helps in providing proof that the BoM is based on actual history. It's sort of like numerology, when you start with a number you think is significant, it is easy to see relationships everywhere.

[cdowis]

del

Edited February 4, 2018 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am admittedly unfamiliar with John Sorenson's work. So my question assumes that we are looking at a different area here than where Dr Sorenson has proposed for BoM locations. But let's say these new areas exhibited the same sort of evidence that Dr Sorenson uses for his work, wouldn't the proposed existence of two different locations for BoM lands indicate a problem with how the evidence is being interpreted?  

I mean if the evidence can be made to fit multiple locations I don't think that helps in providing proof that the BoM is based on actual history. It's sort of like numerology, when you start with a number you think is significant, it is easy to see relationships everywhere.

That is a false assumption. Perhaps you should look at the maps in Mormon's Codex .Sorenson nails it

Edited February 4, 2018 by rodheadlee

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

That would be very nice though we have no reason to expect that we could translate such records.

 

There has been some important advances the translation of  Mayan glyphs:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_script

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, Thinking said:

It seems that any time there is a discovery about some civilization that occupied some of the land in South America, Mormons immediately begin connecting the ruins to the Book of Mormon.

Guatemala isn't in South America.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Guatemala isn't in South America.

Oops. Sometimes I lump Central & South America together.

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That is a false assumption. Perhaps you should look at the maps in Mormon's Codex .Sorenson nails it

So these newly discovered cities match up with those that Dr Sorenson used in both location and time frames?

[cinepro]

On 2/3/2018 at 12:43 PM, Sevenbak said:

Since they made children’s toys with the axle and wheel, I think it’s absurd to assume they didn’t use the wheel on a larger scale, just because it hasn’t been documented yet.

 

Take a stroll down the toy aisle at Walmart and imagine what future archaeologists will think of the technology we must have had in 2017.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So these newly discovered cities match up with those that Dr Sorenson used in both location and time frames?

Where you at in California? I'll loan you the book Mormons Codex. Do they give a location for the new find? I believe they're keeping it secret to keep looters out. But yes to the best of my knowledge Sorensen nails it time and place. Map 10 shows. Zarahemla right in Guatemala.

Edited February 4, 2018 by rodheadlee

[clarkgoble]

On 2/3/2018 at 10:52 AM, Avatar4321 said:

That would be very nice though we have no reason to expect that we could translate such records.

If you find enough records and they aren't in some weird system like the Voynich manuscript then they'd almost certainly be able to translate it. Most of the Dresden codex has been translated. It's hard to believe a significant record couldn't be translated even if it was primarily logographic in nature rather than phonographic like most languages. Especially with Mayan.

On 2/3/2018 at 6:12 PM, CA Steve said:

I am admittedly unfamiliar with John Sorenson's work. So my question assumes that we are looking at a different area here than where Dr Sorenson has proposed for BoM locations. But let's say these new areas exhibited the same sort of evidence that Dr Sorenson uses for his work, wouldn't the proposed existence of two different locations for BoM lands indicate a problem with how the evidence is being interpreted?  

I mean if the evidence can be made to fit multiple locations I don't think that helps in providing proof that the BoM is based on actual history. It's sort of like numerology, when you start with a number you think is significant, it is easy to see relationships everywhere.

Some of Sorenson's work others like Brant Gardner disagree with. It's worth reading the critiques of his book from both apologists with different views and critics taking a more skeptical or secular stance. That said, even if there isn't yet full agreement on the details of geography there is a surprising similarity large due to the river Sidon which tends to constrict possibilities. It's not yet to the point where I'd say there's positive evidence, but I think the plausibility keeps growing every year. If real excavations of this latest find which is in the right area turn up things that it may get quite exciting. Honestly at this stage the only real big problem I'd say is left for the Book of Mormon is the problem of metal which no apologist (yet) has a good explanation for. (That I know of anyway)

On 2/3/2018 at 5:21 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

Think toys with wheels. Build a Lego toy with wheels. Do you need to grease the wheels? No. Plastic on plastic holds up pretty good for kids play.

Think clay toys like those pictured. Looks like they have wooden sticks for axles. Do they need grease for the wheels? Porbably not.

Now build a full size four wheeled wagon. Let me know how well the carts holds up for loads with wooden axles, and wooden hubs. Different types of wood, with varying wear strengths are needed, but metals for axles or wheel loops were not invented. Neither is there evidence that dried leather, then greased was used to hold either the axle r attach ti the frame,

Moving from a toy to a full sized cart is more than just increasing in size. 

Well but once you know it's possible those other engineering problems are relatively trivial which is why other cultures managed just fine. Metal of course helps quite a bit with those problems but it's not hard to find carts of pure wood. Why the Mayans didn't use wheels isn't clear. They also didn't discover the arch, plow or stringed instruments along with quite a few other inventions. Why isn't clear.

Edited February 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

If you find enough records and they aren't in some weird system like the Voynich manuscript...

...or the Anthon Transcript

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

...or the Anthon Transcript

Couldn't that be a problem of too little to work with though?  Voynich Manuscript has over 170,000 characters while the alleged Anthon (or Caractors document) has around 200 (estimate).

Edited February 5, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Couldn't that be a problem of too little to work with though?  Voynich Manuscript has over 170,000 characters while the alleged Anthon (or Caractors document) has around 200 (estimate).

I'm hopeful more (text) could be found through this new discovery. Looters had been digging already, for who knows how long. Doubt they found everything. 

Something as small as the Tlatilco cylinder would be a breakthrough.
https://www.academia.edu/31864637/Tlatilco_cylinder_seal

Where is that cylinder? Anybody know?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Where you at in California? I'll loan you the book Mormons Codex. Do they give a location for the new find? I believe they're keeping it secret to keep looters out. But yes to the best of my knowledge Sorensen nails it time and place. Map 10 shows. Zarahemla right in Guatemala.

Thanks for the offer. I am afraid that I already have multiple books sitting on my shelf waiting their turn to be read. BoM geography is simply an area where I think a lot of reading is necessary to make any sort of informed opinion or comparison. I suppose the exciting part of being interested in Mormon scholarship in general is there is simply too much scholarship in too many areas for them all to be mastered, so that "to-read" list is never empty.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

...or the Anthon Transcript

Problem with the Anthon transcript is that it's short. It's also not clear it's actually text from the main body rather than dictionary entries or something akin. To make an analogy if all you had was the table of contents for a book it'd be hard to translate the language. Voynich is it's own thing in that it's clearly not a phonographic language (normal breaks are missing) and may be some kind of code or short hand. While it's possible the Book of Mormon text is like that, although we don't know, it would be unlikely that general Mayan writings would be like that. They'd be far more apt to be like our existing Dresden Codex. Admittedly the Dresden Codex is quite late (13th-14th century) but the city is 2cd century to around 12th century so it's not that different in age. It'd be surprising if we found texts that were radically different from the Dresden Codex - which has mostly been translated. Surprising in a way given how much of it is accurate positioning for Venus and related astronomical data.

I should add I'm not anticipating their finding useful texts. But it'd be fantastic if they did.

Edited February 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[strappinglad]

As a side note , apparently the Voynich  manuscript has been cracked. It seems the language is coded and a Hebrew base.

 

   Of course, scholars disagree. How unusual !

Edited February 5, 2018 by strappinglad

[omni]

I've seen this pop up in my FB news feed a few times, some even going so far as to state "I hate to say I told you so, but....".  

You hate to say you told us what?  While certainly interesting, I fail to see any relevance to the BoM and this find.  

Haven't archeologists been stating for decades that large sophisticated civilizations existed in this region of the world?  The article even states that the estimated population of 10 million is two to three times what was previously thought.  I mean, were there any critics going, "ah ha", the BoM claims civializations consisting of 10 million people, but everyone knows there were only 3-5 million people!

Additionally, is the discovery of fortifications significant?  Given the number of fortified cities throughout the ancient world, wouldn't one expect there to be at least some pre-Columbian cities with fortifications?

[Storm Rider]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:22 AM, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/the_americas/scientists-find-massive-mayan-society-under-guatemala-jungle/2018/02/02/f4084488-0880-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

posted before I finished sorry

what i found intriguing:  captain Moroni?

I find these types of archeological finds interesting, but I don't favor jumping on any bandwagons that seek to either prove or disprove the veracity of the Book of Mormon.  I remain in a wait and see kind of position - there is so much we do not know about the history of these two continents and if there are skilled individuals search more and more discoveries will be made which will appear both supportive and/or unsupportive for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.  The story is still unfolding and it will be interesting, but for me it ends at "that's interesting".

[strappinglad]

When thinking about the stories in the BoM about the wars and large armies moving quickly to capture cities etc., there was a problem. That country today is VERY thickly overgrown and marching an army of even a thousand men would be nearly impossible. They would be lucky to go single file. These new findings show a land that was much more open and available to attack, hence the fortifications. 

[clarkgoble]

On 2/5/2018 at 9:45 AM, strappinglad said:

As a side note , apparently the Voynich  manuscript has been cracked. It seems the language is coded and a Hebrew base.   Of course, scholars disagree. How unusual !

It's not cracked in a robust fashion. There was a similar claim last year saying it was a medical shorthand and was a medical text. That was quickly shot down. It's not just scholars disagreeing but rather that the arguments are almost always weak. The latest attempt is using AI (which seems dubious for various reasons) and assuming it's an anagram in which letters in a word are rewritten alphabetically. (manuscript becomes acimnprstu) The problem is of course that they haven't translated the whole text but just a few segments and depended upon using Google Translate. (The warning flags should be going off already) Typically when someone claims to have cracked the Voynich manuscript and can't read the language they claim it's written in then a big degree of skepticism is due. When they also can't even produce a translated text it's probably best to just assume they're wrong.

On 2/5/2018 at 9:50 AM, omni said:

You hate to say you told us what?  While certainly interesting, I fail to see any relevance to the BoM and this find.  

Haven't archeologists been stating for decades that large sophisticated civilizations existed in this region of the world?  The article even states that the estimated population of 10 million is two to three times what was previously thought.  I mean, were there any critics going, "ah ha", the BoM claims civializations consisting of 10 million people, but everyone knows there were only 3-5 million people!

Additionally, is the discovery of fortifications significant?  Given the number of fortified cities throughout the ancient world, wouldn't one expect there to be at least some pre-Columbian cities with fortifications?

It gets the numbers closer to Book of Mormon numbers. It's true that in recent decades the view of mesoamerica shifted to their being much more warlike. So fortifications aren't surprising. However to have a city this huge and require fortifications is pretty significant. It suggests warlike opposition was nearly as large. And boom, then you have the war numbers that even recently seemed so outrageous in the Book of Mormon. My understanding as a non-expert is that the nature of the fortifications is significant too.

The second part of the city that is significant is the road system. That suggests even more trade than anticipated as well as a way to move far more swiftly through the jungles particularly during rainy season due to the artificial causeways. (It's actually shocking these were discovered prior to the lidar)

The big hope for Book of Mormon is that as archaeologists and mesoamericanists study the area that new discoveries appear. So the big excitement is less what it tells us now than what it'll tell us in 10 years or so. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2018-02-05 at 7:22 AM, clarkgoble said:

 

Well but once you know it's possible those other engineering problems are relatively trivial which is why other cultures managed just fine. Metal of course helps quite a bit with those problems but it's not hard to find carts of pure wood. Why the Mayans didn't use wheels isn't clear. They also didn't discover the arch, plow or stringed instruments along with quite a few other inventions. Why isn't clear.

 

Other engineering problems relatively trivial???????? I think you need to do some reading up on how the wheel actually developed.

Might I suggest you read, “The Wheel: Inventions and Reinventions” by Richard W. Bulliet. You can start with the first chapter, Wheels vs wheels, and review how the various wheels developed. Of particular interest is the development of two wheeled transports that evolved long before four wheeled carriages. All down to the manouverability of the cart, turning and how the outside wheel must rotate more than the inside wheel, or one wheel moving while the other dragging.

One line of thinking were “wheelsets”, with wheels and axle constructed together. It means that both wheels turn in unison. Think of old train carriage wheels. If a cart had four wheels with two wheelsets it could be moved along a railset. This was a setup used in mines, initially pushed by manpower to move heavy loads. The turning radius of wheelsets is a very major, non-trivial engineering problem. Modern rail trains in the US, require a turning radius of 410 feet compared with the turning radius, for modern cars, at 35 feet. 

 

Somewhere around 4000 to 3000 BCE came wheels that rotated independently around a fixed axle. Modern road vehicles are typical examples.

 

“At the dawn of the European Renaissance in the fourteenth century, four-wheeled vehicles were not in common use anywhere in the world. Two-wheeled carts were easier to build, easier to steer, and mechanically more efficient, since two wheels turn with only half the friction of four. Even in Europe, the only world region that never abandoned the four-wheel concept, passenger wagons were used almost exclusively by noblewomen, the infirm, and the elderly. Noblemen rode horses as a sign of their elite warrior status, while eminent churchmen rode mules.” The Wheel: Inventions and Reinventions. Richard W. Bulliet Chapt. 1

 

The big changes came with innovations in steering. The single axle for the steering wheels had a number of weaknesses, among others a very large turning radius. The last three hundred years are significant in the changes and development of better turning functions.

 

The four wheeled clay vehicles that have been found in ancient Central America, mostly from graves, are never depicted with turning capabilities. They seem to be grave goods. Two wheeled carts, whether children’s toys or grave goods, that would have copied handcarts or war chariots, have not been found. 

 

As I implied, there are considerable engineering difficulties in moving from two wheeled to four wheeled, steerable carts. That progression of development is not evident in anything found from the ancient Americas.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

As I implied, there are considerable engineering difficulties in moving from two wheeled to four wheeled, steerable carts. That progression of development is not evident in anything found from the ancient Americas.

But is a chariot a four wheeled steerable cart? That progression is also not found in the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Other engineering problems relatively trivial???????? I think you need to do some reading up on how the wheel actually developed.

From your comments I think you are taking me as arguing something I'm not. I'm not arguing for them having 19th century wheel technology or even Roman technology but any wheel technology at all. To give an obvious example of a simple chariot like cart take a pallet like flat surface. Take two hardwood shafts you pound in on either side that extend down around a foot. Those will hold the axel. Then carve two wheels and put them on a trimmed hardwood branch that is the axel. Voila you've solved the technology problem. Now is this efficient? Will it turn well? No. Is it ideal in all locations or for all functions? No. Will it last a long time?  No. But it works. It's easy to repair and it increases your functionality considerably. However that does depend upon having an environment where it's useful as well. I suspect the latter is why they didn't develop carts. They just weren't as useful.

Effectively what you're comparing are wheelless carts (which were used in the Americas and may actually be what the Book of Mormon "chariot" refers to) with carts with two wheels. In some cases the wheelless carts pulled by some work animal (horse, mule, cow, llama) are more efficient due to the type of terrain you are going over.

My point is just that getting to the wheeled cart phase isn't as big a deal as you make out. Why the Mayans, Olmecs or Aztecs didn't develop them isn't clear. They even had wide compressed roads between major trading areas where they'd have been useful. The typical assumption is that not having large pack animals like horses meant wheels weren't as useful although that seems dubious as hand carts demonstrate. Also other cultures, like my ancestors the laplanders, domesticated deer like species to do this. So I think it's completely plausible that the Americans could have developed wheeled transports. They just didn't for unknown reasons.

The lack of wheels is surprising given their large stone buildings that required the stone to be transported reasonable distances. That they knew of wheels and that they adopted carts once they saw Cortes using them makes their absence even more mysterious in my opinion. Appealing to the difficulty of development seems a non-starter in my opinion.

Now if you start talking durability, effectiveness in broader terrain, etc. then I'm all with you. But that's not what I'm arguing about. A simple bronze age cart from Eurasia region is pretty simple to make. You need the idea of pegs to stop things from sliding and the idea of a wheel and the idea of an axel of some kind. That's all technology we know they had in mesoamerica yet there's zero evidence of two or four wheeled carts. Only travois.

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But is a chariot a four wheeled steerable cart? That progression is also not found in the Book of Mormon.

Nothing in the Book of Mormon even demands that they have wheeled steerable carts. Ignoring Nephi and quotations from Isaiah or related texts we have only a reference to the Lamanite king (presumably a city state ruler of some sort) in Alma 18 & 20. People assume it means a traditional ANE chariot since horses are mentioned, but that tends to be reading into the text our assumptions. However it need not be a wheeled cart but could easily be a travois (sort of like a sled made from two logs in an A like shape). The other reference is 3 Nephi 3 where the Nephites are fleeing the gadianton group to a central location and take their "horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance." But again nothing there suggests an ANE except our assumption that it's an ANE chariot. 

The usual argument is that since Laman and Nephi knew about carts and chariots they'd have made them. However if where they originally colonize is relatively rural with no roads then a cart would not help them at all. The technology would quickly be forgotten by the time they encounter civilization advanced and wealthy enough to have engineered roads.

Dog travois were used by many native peoples even after they had horses to pull travois. Travois still needed trails made to work well (except on snow - but that's not relevant for Mexico or Guatemala) but the trails take far less work or maintenance compared to what's required for a cart.

Edited February 7, 2018 by clarkgoble