Daniel Peterson's Series on Horses in the Book of Mormon

[smac97]

Dr. Daniel Peterson's blog is an enjoyable resource for learning more about the Church and its doctrines and history.  I particularly like how he mixes things up in terms of topics and approaches thereto, and also provides updates and links to additional resources.

Recently, Dr. P has started a series on the topic of horses in the Book of Mormon.  Here are the entries so far:

• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 1)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 2)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 3)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 4)

The first post pertains to a 2015 article about Pre-Columbian horses: Daniel Johnson, “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54/3 (2015). 

Interesting stuff.  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Interesting stuff.  Any thoughts?

It is interesting. We sometimes find evidence of isolated pockets of a species thought to be long extinct. It would be nice to have some fossils horses that indisputably date to the correct time period. That would be very hard to ignore.

[Fair Dinkum]

The only Hard Evidence Dr Peterson offers in his article is found in his articles title “Hard evidence of ancient American Horses” 

 Not one of the  4 parts of his article provides any hard evidence of ancient American horses.  Very disappointing 

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dr. Daniel Peterson's blog is an enjoyable resource for learning more about the Church and its doctrines and history.  I particularly like how he mixes things up in terms of topics and approaches thereto, and also provides updates and links to additional resources.

Recently, Dr. P has started a series on the topic of horses in the Book of Mormon.  Here are the entries so far:

• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 1)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 2)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 3)
• “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses” (Part 4)

The first post pertains to a 2015 article about Pre-Columbian horses: Daniel Johnson, “‘Hard’ Evidence of Ancient American Horses,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54/3 (2015). 

Interesting stuff.  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

His last series on church finances turned out to be mostly the same tired, shallow apologetics that are frequently offered on that topic.  I've no interest in getting sucked into another one of his series if it's going to be similar.

Edited January 21, 2020 by rockpond

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

It is interesting. We sometimes find evidence of isolated pockets of a species thought to be long extinct. It would be nice to have some fossils horses that indisputably date to the correct time period. That would be very hard to ignore.

"Indisputably" is a tall order.  

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The only Hard Evidence Dr Peterson offers in his article is found in his articles title “Hard evidence of ancient American Horses” 

 Not one of the  4 parts of his article provides any hard evidence of ancient American horses.  Very disappointing 

First, "hard evidence" is a tall order.

Second, "hard" is in quotes, as it is used in the BYU Quarterly article referenced in the blog.

Third, the article itself notes in its very first paragraph that "{f}inding proof of horses in the New World has been a goal for many scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have offered various theories as a means of explanation, yet hard evidence still remains elusive" (emphasis added). 

Similarly, the concluding paragraph notes (emphases added): 

Quote

Although available valid evidence is worth considering, the question of horses in the Book of Mormon has not been decisively answered and may never be resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction. Hard evidence will go only so far in dealing with this and other related issues. Much of the information presented in this article is not new; some data have been known for over a century. The information should be common knowledge, but sadly it is not. The issue of horses in the Book of Mormon is still used by critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a means of attack and by some of its own members as justification for their loss of faith in the Book of Mormon and, subsequently, the religion itself. This situation is lamentable, for it is often based on a foundation of ignorance. The same question is still being thrown about, with an apparent disregard of the latest (or even some of the earliest) scientific knowledge on the subject. Those who wish to defend the authenticity of Latter-day Saint scripture can easily educate themselves to improve the quality of the debate. 

I am not sure demanding "hard" evidence for horses is a necessary component of having faith in the Book of Mormon.  Lots of room for conjecture here.  Lots of room for plausibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The only Hard Evidence Dr Peterson offers in his article is found in his articles title “Hard evidence of ancient American Horses” 

Again, the word "hard" is in quotes.  So the article's title is "'Hard' Evidence of Ancient American Horses."

Why do you think that is so?

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 Not one of the  4 parts of his article provides any hard evidence of ancient American horses.  Very disappointing 

It appears you haven't read the article.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

From the Johnson paper:

Quote

However, they have had surprising results from some North American samples.

A horse bone from Pratt Cave near El Paso, Texas, dated from 6020 to 5890 bc. Another specimen from Wolf Spider Cave in Colorado dated from ad 1260 to 1400. A bone from Horsethief Cave in Wyoming dated to 1100 bc. Most of these dates were obtained through AMS dating, but the Wolf Spider specimen’s date was obtained with thermoluminescent meth­ ods. Some Native American traditions also support the existence of horses from a post-Pleistocene but pre-Columbian era.79  

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/Daniel Johnson%2C Hard Evidence of Ancient American Horses%2C 2015.pdf

And a rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@ArchyFantasies/our-first-full-chapter-in-the-lost-history-of-ancient-america-is-horses-in-america-before-columbus-2b3142d9962f

Have no clue about this poster's background, but if his concerns are accurate, more info is needed to document the above finds.

Nothing really recent on this...

Edited January 21, 2020 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Indisputably" is a tall order.

Using a variety of dating techniques usually gives us a very reliable time frame. Young earth creationists are the only people I know who regularly challenge scientific dating. The more methods utilized the better.

[ERMD]

"Tapir-back writer."

😄

[katherine the great]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the Johnson paper:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/Daniel Johnson%2C Hard Evidence of Ancient American Horses%2C 2015.pdf

And a rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@ArchyFantasies/our-first-full-chapter-in-the-lost-history-of-ancient-america-is-horses-in-america-before-columbus-2b3142d9962f

Have no clue about this poster's background, but if his concerns are accurate, more info is needed to document the above finds.

Nothing really recent on this...

Well..I have to agree with the rebuttal. There are several red flags: An unpublished paper. No provenience. The claim of the Texas, Colorado and Wyoming bones are not referenced. Why? (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.) Thermoluminescence? How do you date a bone with that? (Unless the horse can be shown to have eaten a piece of pottery..) It's all very unscientific-especially from a physicist and a geologist. Disappointing. 😕

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The only Hard Evidence Dr Peterson offers in his article is found in his articles title “Hard evidence of ancient American Horses” 

 Not one of the  4 parts of his article provides any hard evidence of ancient American horses.  Very disappointing 

He did say it was "to be continued" -- so hold your horses, mate.

Meantime we do have Steven E. Jones, “Were There Horses in the Americas Before Columbus?” Ancient American, 16 #95 (June 2012):2-3, online at  http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/index.php?i=115319&m=&l=&p=2&pre=&ver=swf ,

Quote

–no known equus samples from Mesoamerica from 14,700 BC - 1,650 AD.
–equus in Pratt Cave (near El Paso), Texas, from ca. 6,020 - 5,890 BC. [see below]
–equus in Wolf Spider Cave, Colorado, from 1,260 - 1,400 AD
–equus in Horsethief Cave, Wyoming, ca. 1,100 BC
–equus bone in Wyoming, ca. 1,426 - 1,481 AD
–equus bones in Canada, from 900 BC (Sask, Ridell I-8581), and 1,100 AD (Ontario, Hemlock Park Farm)

The evidence of equus in Pratt Cave (near El Paso), Texas, from ca. 6,020 - 5,890 BC is actually coterminus with sedimentary DNA of horse from the Yukon, James Haile, et al., “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska,” PNAS, Dec 17, 2009, online at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full .  The scholars conclude that "the duration of human/megafaunal overlap was probably even greater than suggested by our sedaDNA results, raising questions about the mode and tempo of extinction."

Edited January 21, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

His last series on church finances turned out to be mostly the same tired, shallow apologetics that are frequently offered on that topic.  I've no interest in getting sucked into another one of his series if it's going to be similar.

tough audience

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

............................................Interesting stuff.  Any thoughts?......................

Indigenous American animals that are useful and for which Joseph Smith probably would not have had an English name include the alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), tapir, agouti,  capybara, iguana, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Well..I have to agree with the rebuttal. There are several red flags: An unpublished paper. No provenience. The claim of the Texas, Colorado and Wyoming bones are not referenced. Why? (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.) Thermoluminescence? How do you date a bone with that? (Unless the horse can be shown to have eaten a piece of pottery..) It's all very unscientific-especially from a physicist and a geologist. Disappointing. 😕

Last I heard, Dr Jones was going to see if Carbon 14 dating could be done.  The dating in his article seems to have been based on stratigraphy.  However, as I point out in this thread, the Pratt Cave instance can reasonably be compared to actual sedaDNA of about the same date.

[Stargazer]

One problem with hard evidence is that the current assumption is that horses totally died out in all the Americas by a particular timeframe, and so contrary evidence must overcome the assumption sufficiently, or else it will be taken as an outlier and not generally valid, and probably also spurious.  Fossils are actually quite rare and difficult to form.  Horses could have been running around freely in certain areas at the time of Columbus and no specimens would have had a chance of discovery or fossilization.  I have heard it said that some of the North American tribes were using horses well into historical times -- horses that they were using well before the Spanish brought new horses to the Americas.  And nobody noticed.

[stemelbow]

The problem with the "well maybe we still have a chance" apologetic (and this seems to be more of the same) is that they only seem to consider anything that keeps the door cracked for them, ignoring all others who are intent on closing the door.  Too often the others find themselves uncomfortable with those who insist on wedging their foot in the door, concerned by the misuse of science.  Or concerned by the overstating of possibility.  

It's much nicer to make sense of the posted rebuttal than accept the effort by Dan's "well maybe we still have a chance" posts.  Don't get me wrong.  His are cute enough posts, and at least broach the topic.  They usually end up a little silly--like his church finances series.  

[smac97]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Quote

From the Johnson paper:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/Daniel Johnson%2C Hard Evidence of Ancient American Horses%2C 2015.pdf

And a rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@ArchyFantasies/our-first-full-chapter-in-the-lost-history-of-ancient-america-is-horses-in-america-before-columbus-2b3142d9962f

Have no clue about this poster's background, but if his concerns are accurate, more info is needed to document the above finds.

Nothing really recent on this...

Well..I have to agree with the rebuttal.

Taken in isolation, I would understand that position.

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

There are several red flags: An unpublished paper. No provenience. The claim of the Texas, Colorado and Wyoming bones are not referenced. Why? (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.) Thermoluminescence? How do you date a bone with that? (Unless the horse can be shown to have eaten a piece of pottery..) It's all very unscientific-especially from a physicist and a geologist. Disappointing. 😕

I'm not sure I understand.  The Johnson article doesn't make claims to presenting "'hard' evidence" of pre-Columbian horses.  To the contrary, the author concedes in the first paragraph of the article that "hard evidence still remains elusive," and in the third paragraph that "so far no incontrovertible proof of Book of Mormon horses exists—that is to say, physical remains conclusively dated to around 500 bc (and earlier) from supposed Book of Mormon lands in Mesoamerica are yet to be found." 

The author concludes the article by noting that "the question of horses in the Book of Mormon has not been decisively answered and may never be resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction."

Is this a fair assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The problem with the "well maybe we still have a chance" apologetic (and this seems to be more of the same) is that they only seem to consider anything that keeps the door cracked for them, ignoring all others who are intent on closing the door. 

I don't understand.  Are you saying we can "close the door" on the possibility of Pre-Columbian horses?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Too often the others find themselves uncomfortable with those who insist on wedging their foot in the door, concerned by the misuse of science. 

Who is misusing science?

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or concerned by the overstating of possibility.  

Who is overstating the possibility of Pre-Columbian horses?

Thanks,

-Smac  

[Calm]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:18 AM, Stargazer said:

One problem with hard evidence is that the current assumption is that horses totally died out in all the Americas by a particular timeframe, and so contrary evidence must overcome the assumption sufficiently, or else it will be taken as an outlier and not generally valid, and probably also spurious.  Fossils are actually quite rare and difficult to form.  Horses could have been running around freely in certain areas at the time of Columbus and no specimens would have had a chance of discovery or fossilization.  I have heard it said that some of the North American tribes were using horses well into historical times -- horses that they were using well before the Spanish brought new horses to the Americas.  And nobody noticed.

I thought Johnson's paper had a good discussion including a map with years of citings on the strange, spread out appearances of the pinto and other multicolored horses so quickly after the arrival of the Spanish horses, of which solid colors were preferred, plus heavier numbers on stallions rather than mares and apparently they kept close track of them, recording deaths in battle and dinner pot and actual losses of the mounts.

I would be interested in hearing horse breeding experts to see how fast a herd of the multicolored favored by the NA's would be able to be developed from a stallion and a mare of solid color along with any other variables of the two different groups of horses as well as anthropologists in how quickly a culture would adapt to such a dramatic addition to their domestic stalk.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you saying we can "close the door" on the possibility of Pre-Columbian horses?

Of course not.  As i understand it Pre-Columbian horses went extinct some 10,000 years ago.  It's quite possible something will be found that brings that date closer.  I suppose that means it is quite possible in some way and at some time there will be "hard" evidence for BoM times.  I think the door is closed to the possibility of the BoM being used to instruct on the science though.   

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who is misusing science?

Who is overstating the possibility of Pre-Columbian horses?

Thanks,

-Smac  

I'm just siding with the rebuttal, at least at this point.  It's very argument is suggesting the whole of Jones' piece is overstating the possibility.  

[smac97]

12 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Quote

Quote

It would be nice to have some fossils horses that indisputably date to the correct time period. That would be very hard to ignore.

"Indisputably" is a tall order.

Using a variety of dating techniques usually gives us a very reliable time frame.

A fair point.  I guess I was referencing the entire sentence.  Yes, it would be nice to have evidence that "indisputably" establishes the presence of Pre-Columbian horses at the right time and place.

My point is that I think it is useful to examine not only the present state of the evidence regarding Pre-Columbian horses (which, I think, is not particularly robust), but also our expectations about the probative weight and relevance of the evidence.  How far can the evidence take us in proving or disproving the existence of Pre-Columbian horses?  How relevant is the presence or absence of competent, testable evidence regarding Pre-Columbian horses?

Johnson suggests that "the question of horses in the Book of Mormon has not been decisively answered and may never be resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction."  Is he correct?

Regarding our expectations, I am reminded of a concept that has been dubbed the "CSI Effect," described here:

Quote

The CSI effect, also known as the CSI syndrome and the CSI infection, is any of several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term was first reported in a 2004 USA Today article describing the effect being made on trial jurors by television programs featuring forensic science. It most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the effective standard of proof for prosecutors. While this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, some studies have suggested that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect, although frequent CSI viewers may place a lower value on circumstantial evidence. As technology improves and becomes more prevalent throughout society, people may also develop higher expectations for the capabilities of forensic technology.

William Hamblin also addressed this generalized concept in his important 1993 article: Basic Methodological Problems with the AntiMormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.  Hamblin also addresses the specific topic of horses, and of basic methodological problems associated with it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course not.  As i understand it Pre-Columbian horses went extinct some 10,000 years ago.  It's quite possible something will be found that brings that date closer.  I suppose that means it is quite possible in some way and at some time there will be "hard" evidence for BoM times.  I think the door is closed to the possibility of the BoM being used to instruct on the science though.   

What does "the BoM being used to instruct on the science" mean?

And who is advocating this?

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just siding with the rebuttal, at least at this point.  It's very argument is suggesting the whole of Jones' piece is overstating the possibility.  

Okay.  I would be nice to be able to actually read the Jones article.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

I'm just siding with the rebuttal, at least at this point.  It's very argument is suggesting the whole of Jones' piece is overstating the possibility.  

Just to be clear, Dan Peterson is summarizing Daniel Johnson's paper which cites Steve Jones's papers but deals with more.  My quote is also from that paper, one of the times he refers to Jones' research.

The rebuttal I linked to was specific to Jones' work, iirc it didn't deal with Johnson's paper, I would need to go back and see what besides the bones overlapped.

So iirc the rebuttal will not address all of .Johnson's points and therefore may miss some of Dan's.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Calm

[CA Steve]

For accuracy, I believe the title to Dan's posts should have added "ly" after the first word in the title.

[katherine the great]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Last I heard, Dr Jones was going to see if Carbon 14 dating could be done.  The dating in his article seems to have been based on stratigraphy.  However, as I point out in this thread, the Pratt Cave instance can reasonably be compared to actual sedaDNA of about the same date.

My main point is that authors need to clearly reference their claims to scientific journal articles if they want to appear credible. There's a reason for peer review. One of these "articles" referenced a children's book from 1962. I get as bored as the next person reading extensive scientific journal articles, but it is absolutely imperative to be able to see the details of the research in order to feel comfortable that the conclusions are reliable.

I was a bit interested in the PNAS article you referenced. I'm really mostly familiar with sedaDNA being used to give us genetic information about ancient humans. I don't think I've ever seen it used as a dating technique because by nature, there would be the possibility of seepage between layers. In a glacial environment though, I would be comfortable with some preliminary relative dates using this interesting method.