More on Horses

[PacMan]

"[O]ur new temporal framework shows that horses were present across the plains long before any documented European presence in the Rockies or the central plains."

I'd be interested in Ugo Perego or other geneticists chiming in on what the specific result do and do not mean for the Book of Mormon.  At face value, however, they appear positive.

Early dispersal of domestic horses into the Great Plains and northern Rockies | Science

Edited April 10, 2023 by PacMan

[Hamilton Porter]

Book of Mormon Central did a video on it. The periods for which they were found correspond rather nicely with the times they were mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Here's to one fewer excuse to sin or get offended!

[The Nehor]

This is still saying that the horses were introduced by the Europeans. In addition to the genetic evidence there is the reality that the Plains tribes never reached an economic equilibrium with the increased advantages of the horse. It is possible that it would have eventually required the tribes to move from hunting to herding to maintain the food supply.

[Hamilton Porter]

This is the correct article.

https://meridian.allenpress.com/tjs/article/74/1/Article 5/487323/POST-PLEISTOCENE-HORSES-EQUUS-FROM-MEXICO

[PacMan]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is still saying that the horses were introduced by the Europeans. In addition to the genetic evidence there is the reality that the Plains tribes never reached an economic equilibrium with the increased advantages of the horse. It is possible that it would have eventually required the tribes to move from hunting to herding to maintain the food supply.

"[O]ur new temporal framework shows that horses were present across the plains long before any documented European presence in the Rockies or the central plains."

???

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

"[O]ur new temporal framework shows that horses were present across the plains long before any documented European presence in the Rockies or the central plains."

???

That is saying that the European horses got there before the Europeans did. Basically that the horses from the Spanish conquistadors got up north before European expeditions and colonization got to the Rockies and Central Plains.

[Pyreaux]

A decade ago, Hardy Oelke’s book "Born Survivors on the Eve of Extinction“ resp. the German edition "Das Vermächtnis des Columbus“, he suggests, with the unlikelihood that the plain's horses came from the Spanish, that Columbus may have already shipped Sorraias to the New World. The mtDNA analyses, done by a German institute for molecularbiological research, show that some American mustangs and the Sorraia horse, are genetically related. And the Sorraia is not the domesticated horses the Spanish used, its a wild primitive South Iberian horse, which live in an almost inaccessible lowlands of the Portuguese river Sorraia.

The Sorraia is part of a genetic cluster that is largely separated from most Iberian breeds. They link this cluster with Konik and Mongolian horses. The Mongolian wild horse was once believed to be the ancestor to all our domestic horses. This theory is disseminated as fact in most books and articles today. However, Japanese geneticists have documented in 1995 through mtDNA analyses that the Mongolian wild horse, or Przewalsi's horse, is NOT an ancestor of domestic horses. Whatever the wild ancestors were of our domestic stock, the Mongolian wild horse, or Przewalski's horse, stems from the same root as all other horses we know.

Some zoologists and paleo-zoologists think that there were several forms of wild horses that our domestic horses derived from. One such form is still around in the British Exmoor pony, another one in the Sorraia horse. The Sorraia horse is most likely a direct descendant of an ancestral form, the closest thing we have left to that form.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100612230935/http://www.spanish-mustang.org/mustang.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20110516120936/http://www.sorraia.org/Website/mtDNA.html

http://www.equiworld.net/breeds/sorraia/mongolian.htm

-----------

There is a theory the American horses might not have gone extinct.

The Plains Native Americans have long held that they had the American Mustang well before Columbus, but they are generally dismissed as legends, and their ancient art depicting horses as merely creative expressions.

The horses imported by the Spanish were Hispano-Arabian horses, well breed, and are very, very rarely multicolored, especially among careful breeders. The few they did use as pack horses, and the Spanish did report they did bring two "painted" horses in 1519, those two were the only ones, and there's no indication they were left there or used for breeding. Instead, the early Spanish claim to have kept their mares from the wild, and only sent stallions on long expeditions. Hardy Oelke above asks just how did all these random stallions manage to populate an entire continent with horses so quickly without any mares?

There were also French fur trappers who reached the Western Plains around the 1660's and found the Plains tribes with well-developed horse technology and riding breeds of horses then unknown to Europeans, like the Appaloosa. The Indian horses were small and multicolored, which is hard to explain, its as if the Spaniards dropped off cartloads of their much larger monochrome horses in Mexico and they wandered up to the middle of the US, and de-evolved into small primitive horses over the next 100 years.

Frank Gilbert Roe, in his book The Indian and the Horse (University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1955), explains that the Shoshone horses had to have been introduced well before 1700. Spanish horses couldn't have gotten up there that quickly, and no such horses were known to the Spanish. The American Mustang pintos and creams aren't descendants from them.

Apparently, everyone is just guessing about who, how and when the horse came to the Americas. I suppose contact with Imperial Chinese fleets afterward could have also yielded a reintroduction of horses... 

The modern Spanish Mustang or caballine horse, E. caballus, is a genetic equivalent to E. lambei, which is a horse in the 7,600 fossil record, that merely represents the most recent Equus fossils found in North America. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America. Used by animal rights activists to claim they are a native species, against the practices of the BLM (Bureau of Land Management)

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/state-and-regional/utah/article_d3d05465-a0c8-5460-a445-1346e121b621.html

EDIT:

https://awionline.org/content/wild-horses-native-north-american-wildlife

Edited April 10, 2023 by Pyreaux

[blackstrap]

You mean that there were "other " horses here when the Spanish horses arrived ? Sounds familiar .

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

A decade ago, Hardy Oelke’s book "Born Survivors on the Eve of Extinction“ resp. the German edition "Das Vermächtnis des Columbus“, he suggests, with the unlikelihood that the plain's horses came from the Spanish, that Columbus may have already shipped Sorraias to the New World. The mtDNA analyses, done by a German institute for molecularbiological research, show that some American mustangs and the Sorraia horse, are genetically related. And the Sorraia is not the domesticated horses the Spanish used, its a wild primitive South Iberian horse, which live in an almost inaccessible lowlands of the Portuguese river Sorraia.

The Sorraia is part of a genetic cluster that is largely separated from most Iberian breeds. They link this cluster with Konik and Mongolian horses. The Mongolian wild horse was once believed to be the ancestor to all our domestic horses. This theory is disseminated as fact in most books and articles today. However, Japanese geneticists have documented in 1995 through mtDNA analyses that the Mongolian wild horse, or Przewalsi's horse, is NOT an ancestor of domestic horses. Whatever the wild ancestors were of our domestic stock, the Mongolian wild horse, or Przewalski's horse, stems from the same root as all other horses we know.

Some zoologists and paleo-zoologists think that there were several forms of wild horses that our domestic horses derived from. One such form is still around in the British Exmoor pony, another one in the Sorraia horse. The Sorraia horse is most likely a direct descendant of an ancestral form, the closest thing we have left to that form.

http://www.spanish-mustang.org/mustang.htm

http://www.sorraia.org/Website/mtDNA.html

http://www.equiworld.net/breeds/sorraia/mongolian.htm

-----------

There is a theory the American horses might not have gone extinct.

The Plains Native Americans have long held that they had the American Mustang well before Columbus, but they are generally dismissed as legends, and their ancient art depicting horses as merely creative expressions.

The horses imported by the Spanish were Hispano-Arabian horses, well breed, and are very, very rarely multicolored, especially among careful breeders. The few they did use as pack horses, and the Spanish did report they did bring two "painted" horses in 1519, those two were the only ones, and there's no indication they were left there or used for breeding. Instead, the early Spanish claim to have kept their mares from the wild, and only sent stallions on long expeditions. Hardy Oelke above asks just how did all these random stallions manage to populate an entire continent with horses so quickly without any mares?

There were also French fur trappers who reached the Western Plains around the 1660's and found the Plains tribes with well-developed horse technology and riding breeds of horses then unknown to Europeans, like the Appaloosa. The Indian horses were small and multicolored, which is hard to explain, its as if the Spaniards dropped off cartloads of their much larger monochrome horses in Mexico and they wandered up to the middle of the US, and de-evolved into small primitive horses over the next 100 years.

Frank Gilbert Roe, in his book The Indian and the Horse (University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, 1955), explains that the Shoshone horses had to have been introduced well before 1700. Spanish horses couldn't have gotten up there that quickly, and no such horses were known to the Spanish. The American Mustang pintos and creams aren't descendants from them.

Apparently, everyone is just guessing about who, how and when the horse came to the Americas. I suppose contact with Imperial Chinese fleets afterward could have also yielded a reintroduction of horses... 

The modern Spanish Mustang or caballine horse, E. caballus, is a genetic equivalent to E. lambei, which is a horse in the 7,600 fossil record, that merely represents the most recent Equus fossils found in North America. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America. Used by animal rights activists against the BLM (Bureau of Land Management)

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/state-and-regional/utah/article_d3d05465-a0c8-5460-a445-1346e121b621.html

Could you repost the link?  Appears broken.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Could you repost the link?  Appears broken.

Some of my Archive entries are old, I've updated links with the wayback machine and one alternative.

[sunstoned]

Horses change cultures.  The plains Indians are a good example.  Once they acquired horses their culture rapidly evolved.  Travel, hunting and war along with their art and language was greatly influenced by the horse. It's the same with all horse cultures. The evidence these cultures leave behind speak to this.   There was no horse culture in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. No art, no traditions, evidence at all. 

[mfbukowski]

It doesn't matter.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Horses change cultures.  The plains Indians are a good example.  Once they acquired horses their culture rapidly evolved.  Travel, hunting and war along with their art and language was greatly influenced by the horse. It's the same with all horse cultures. The evidence these cultures leave behind speak to this.   There was no horse culture in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. No art, no traditions, evidence at all. 

And the Mongols with their very specialized horse culture were able to break all the rules of warfare due to that culture.

[Hamilton Porter]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Horses change cultures.  The plains Indians are a good example.  Once they acquired horses their culture rapidly evolved.  Travel, hunting and war along with their art and language was greatly influenced by the horse. It's the same with all horse cultures. The evidence these cultures leave behind speak to this.   There was no horse culture in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. No art, no traditions, evidence at all. 

Irrelevant. We know there were horses because have paleontology, your touchy-feely subjects notwithstanding.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Book of Mormon Central did a video on it. The periods for which they were found correspond rather nicely with the times they were mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Here's to one fewer excuse to sin or get offended!

It is highly dubious that horses were present in BoM times as they North American Horses were likely extinct 8,000-12,000 years ago.

Quote

While genus Equus, of which the horse is a member, originally evolved in North America, these horse relatives became extinct on the continent approximately 8,000–12,000 years ago. In 1493, on Christopher Columbus' second voyage to the Americas, Spanish horses, representing E. caballus, were brought back to North America, first to the Virgin Islands; they were introduced to the continental mainland by Hernán Cortés in 1519. From early Spanish imports to Mexico and Florida, horses moved north, supplemented by later imports to the east and west coasts brought by British, French, and other European colonists. Native peoples of the Americas quickly obtained horses and developed their own horse culture.^[5][6]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#Statistics}

Guess still have this excuse to keep sinning and being offended.😏

[Hamilton Porter]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is highly dubious that horses were present in BoM times as they North American Horses were likely extinct 8,000-12,000 years ago.

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States#Statistics}

Guess still have this excuse to keep sinning and being offended.😏

Pleased read the peer-reviewed article I posted instead of the redneck bait on Wikipedia. Thank you.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't matter.

Sure it does.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Pleased read the peer-reviewed article I posted instead of the redneck bait on Wikipedia. Thank you.

You want other sources?  I figured all your snarky remark deserved was Wikipedia.

[Hamilton Porter]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure it does.

Not to postmodern people it doesn't.

[Hamilton Porter]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Plains Native Americans have long held that they had the American Mustang well before Columbus, but they are generally dismissed as legends, and their ancient art depicting horses as merely creative expressions.

I tend to believe natives over dumb white people, especially about their own history.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I tend to believe natives over dumb white people, especially about their own history.

The conversation might be a little better if you weren't insulting people every post.

[Hamilton Porter]

The fourth column indicates how long ago the horse bones radiocarbonly date back to.

Link again:

https://meridian.allenpress.com/tjs/article/74/1/Article 5/487323/POST-PLEISTOCENE-HORSES-EQUUS-FROM-MEXICO

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Irrelevant. We know there were horses because have paleontology, your touchy-feely subjects notwithstanding.

Sunstones point remains. The research sited in your paper is an interesting data point, but given the lack of other cultural evidence, it is far far from definitive. As previously discussed here there are potential problems with the methodology. Hopefully further study will be done:

 

“

The major problem I have with the paper is that the radiocarbon dates were NOT from collagen (protein) purified from the horse bones (the gold standard). The dates were from charcoal or wood next to the bones. If you are not able to isolate collagen, you are at the mercy of the soil environment which can contaminate the bones AND the adjacent charcoal or wood with much younger carbon.

 

A major source of younger contaminating carbon in soils is rainwater, which contains dissolved carbon dioxide. This very dilute carbonic acid percolates down the soil profile. Evaporation at the soil surface eventually causes the carbonic acid to precipitate out as calcium carbonate, a solid material found in many soils and caves.

 

From my reading of the paper it is clear that the soils where Miller et al. located the horse bones were rich in carbonates. These are direct quotes from the paper.

 

“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦́𝘴 & 𝘍𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴-𝘋𝘪́𝘢𝘻 (2012) 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 7 𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 (𝘍𝘪𝘨. 3) 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘢 (𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘤𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦), 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 5 𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.”

 

Using currently available methods it would be almost impossible to date these Mexican horse bones accurately. The bones, and the charcoal and wood adjacent to the bones, would almost certainly be contaminated with much younger carbonates.

 

The authors are aware of the problem of drawing conclusions from the charcoal and wood dates. They make this surprising admission in the paper, which almost sounds like a response to a reviewer.

 

“𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘥𝘫𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴.”

 

However, if the soil is contaminated with carbonates, it doesn’t matter how close you get to the bones. Even the bones are contaminated! Everything is contaminated with carbonates and the dates would be meaningless. I suspect all experienced scientists would be very cautious about the radiocarbon dates reported in the paper, apart from the dates obtained from collagen extracted from post-Columbus horses.

 

Another reason the dates of the charcoal and wood are less reliable is that some soils may have been disturbed in the past by a flood or earthquake. This can result in older bones being deposited in a new location alongside much younger organic material like charcoal and wood.

 

For these reasons, scientists will be very cautious about accepting indirect dates from surrounding organic matter. The best evidence is radiocarbon dates from collagen protein purified from bones. This data is lacking in the paper.

 

Scientists working on Kennewick Man also encountered carbonates, and yet again, Mormons have got the science wrong. This is discussed in detail in a recent paper I co-authored with Thomas Murphy and Angelo Baca. https://www.academia.edu/.../Science_and_Fiction...

 

Kennewick Man was a paleolithic hunter who's almost fully intact skeleton was recovered from the banks of the Columbia River in Kennewick Washington. Because scientists were able to isolate high quality collagen from several of Kennewick Man’s bones, they were able to determine that he was, without a doubt, around 9,000 years old. However, some of Kennewick Man’s bones were contaminated by carbonates.

 

In order to learn when the carbonates formed they measured radiocarbon dates for several of Kennewick Man's bones. Not surprisingly, the dates were much younger, roughly 2,500 years ago. To this day some Mormon apologists still claim the carbonate dates on Kennewick Man reflect his true age, even after the scientists corrected their false claims.

 

It's worth noting that the horse species Miller et al. were studying are not the same species as the horses the Spanish brought. They are New World species. This means that Indigenous people would have needed to domesticate them. There is no evidence of pre-Columbian use of horses among indigenous populations anywhere in the Americas”

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sunstones point remains. The research sited in your paper is an interesting data point, but given the lack of other cultural evidence, it is far far from definitive. As previously discussed here there are potential problems with the methodology. Hopefully further study will be done:

 

“

The major problem I have with the paper is that the radiocarbon dates were NOT from collagen (protein) purified from the horse bones (the gold standard). The dates were from charcoal or wood next to the bones. If you are not able to isolate collagen, you are at the mercy of the soil environment which can contaminate the bones AND the adjacent charcoal or wood with much younger carbon.

 

A major source of younger contaminating carbon in soils is rainwater, which contains dissolved carbon dioxide. This very dilute carbonic acid percolates down the soil profile. Evaporation at the soil surface eventually causes the carbonic acid to precipitate out as calcium carbonate, a solid material found in many soils and caves.

 

From my reading of the paper it is clear that the soils where Miller et al. located the horse bones were rich in carbonates. These are direct quotes from the paper.

 

“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦́𝘴 & 𝘍𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴-𝘋𝘪́𝘢𝘻 (2012) 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 7 𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 (𝘍𝘪𝘨. 3) 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘢 (𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘤𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦), 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 5 𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.”

 

Using currently available methods it would be almost impossible to date these Mexican horse bones accurately. The bones, and the charcoal and wood adjacent to the bones, would almost certainly be contaminated with much younger carbonates.

 

The authors are aware of the problem of drawing conclusions from the charcoal and wood dates. They make this surprising admission in the paper, which almost sounds like a response to a reviewer.

 

“𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘥𝘫𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴.”

 

However, if the soil is contaminated with carbonates, it doesn’t matter how close you get to the bones. Even the bones are contaminated! Everything is contaminated with carbonates and the dates would be meaningless. I suspect all experienced scientists would be very cautious about the radiocarbon dates reported in the paper, apart from the dates obtained from collagen extracted from post-Columbus horses.

 

Another reason the dates of the charcoal and wood are less reliable is that some soils may have been disturbed in the past by a flood or earthquake. This can result in older bones being deposited in a new location alongside much younger organic material like charcoal and wood.

 

For these reasons, scientists will be very cautious about accepting indirect dates from surrounding organic matter. The best evidence is radiocarbon dates from collagen protein purified from bones. This data is lacking in the paper.

 

Scientists working on Kennewick Man also encountered carbonates, and yet again, Mormons have got the science wrong. This is discussed in detail in a recent paper I co-authored with Thomas Murphy and Angelo Baca. https://www.academia.edu/.../Science_and_Fiction...

 

Kennewick Man was a paleolithic hunter who's almost fully intact skeleton was recovered from the banks of the Columbia River in Kennewick Washington. Because scientists were able to isolate high quality collagen from several of Kennewick Man’s bones, they were able to determine that he was, without a doubt, around 9,000 years old. However, some of Kennewick Man’s bones were contaminated by carbonates.

 

In order to learn when the carbonates formed they measured radiocarbon dates for several of Kennewick Man's bones. Not surprisingly, the dates were much younger, roughly 2,500 years ago. To this day some Mormon apologists still claim the carbonate dates on Kennewick Man reflect his true age, even after the scientists corrected their false claims.

 

It's worth noting that the horse species Miller et al. were studying are not the same species as the horses the Spanish brought. They are New World species. This means that Indigenous people would have needed to domesticate them. There is no evidence of pre-Columbian use of horses among indigenous populations anywhere in the Americas”

What does Simon Southerton know about this subject? Thanks for linking the thread.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[cacheman]

23 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Book of Mormon Central did a video on it. The periods for which they were found correspond rather nicely with the times they were mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Here's to one fewer excuse to sin or get offended!

The article posted by the OP is not the same one in the BoMC video.  Instead, it provides evidence that modern horses were integrated into the plains Indians culture at as early as the early 1600's, prior to European settlement into those areas.  It also shows that the horses used by Native Americans did not originate from Late Pleistocene North American horses, but instead originated from European genetic sources.