Archaeologists discover a lost world of 417 ancient Mayans cities buried in remote jungle, connected by miles of 'superhighways"

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Book of Mormon mentions "chariots" as a possible mode of transportation, so the critics think there should be evidence of Roman style wheeled chariots. 

Yes.  As is often the case, an issue about the Book of Mormon text becomes more about the reader's expectations and presuppositions than about the text itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you keep on falling from stepping on junior's toy when you get up extra early to drag your sledge of firewood to sell in the next town over, but you don't figure out that if you put those round thingies on the sledge it's gonna make your task 100 times easier? 

It just never made sense to me!

Wheels can have their drawbacks.  The axel can be a tricky thing.  Primitive wheels on primitive surfaces (muddy and/or rocky and/or uneven terrain).  Substantial inclines/declines can make "braking" difficult.

A travois may have worked, and also fit the generalized parameters of what it described in the text of the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., here).  The same goes for palanquins/litters/sedan chairs.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2023 by smac97

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  As is often the case, an issue about the Book of Mormon text becomes more about the readers expectations and presuppositions than about the text itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ditto for the Bible!

[Damien the Leper]

On 5/22/2023 at 7:17 AM, smac97 said:

Yes.  As is often the case, an issue about the Book of Mormon text becomes more about the reader's expectations and presuppositions than about the text itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Genuine curiosity... what model of chariot might be used by BoM peoples? As they have no connection, thus far, to ancient Mayans and Aztecans, I'd be curious to know what model they would use. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Yes.  As is often the case, an issue about the Book of Mormon text becomes more about the reader's expectations and presuppositions than about the text itself.

Genuine curiosity... what model of chariot might be used by BoM peoples? As they have no connection, thus far, to ancient Mayans and Aztecans, I'd be curious to know what model they would use. 

Perhaps what we would today describe using words like litter / sedan chair / palanquin.  BOMC and FAIR both address this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 5/21/2023 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

Without wheels and animals to pull things all the talk of sending provisions in the Book of Mormon don’t make much sense. Unless they were using river (or ocean) transport I suppose.

How do you figure?  We know from historical accounts that the Aztec pochteca were sending goods and provisions throughout Mesoamerica without the benefit of wheels and animals.  These extensive trading networks stretched across central and southern Mexico and moved enough goods to fuel an empire.  

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

How do you figure?  We know from historical accounts that the Aztec pochteca were sending goods and provisions throughout Mesoamerica without the benefit of wheels and animals.  These extensive trading networks stretched across central and southern Mexico and moved enough goods to fuel an empire.  

 

Trade can certainly exist but in lighter luxury goods.

The problem is that if you are shipping provisions to feed an army you need ships that can use the wind to move them or you need animals and carriages to haul it. You can move food by having people carry it but those people hauling it have to eat. So if they eat half of what they carry on the way you need to move even more. You hit the same problem as you hit with space travel. You add more fuel but then you need more fuel to get the bigger ship moving. Animals mitigate this to a degree but if you are talking about humans moving the provisions you will need a lot of people to carry it all and all of them are eating too. Generally pre-modern armies foraged to get food (polite word for looting the whole area) because moving supplies is impractical even with wagons and ships.

Ships work best because you don’t have to feed them. Animals eat too and the better animals often can’t subside just by letting them graze so you have to carry some of their food too.

You have accounts of incompetently managed armies in the pre-modern world unable to supply an army within a week’s walk of home. I was just reading of Sparta bungling such a campaign the other day.

Without wheels and animals moving bulk foodstuffs would be done by ship or pretty much not at all. Trade would still be possible with luxury goods and light stuff and messengers could cross throughout a larger state but mass food shipments? Not unless they were using ships.

[Navidad]

Methinks that it is so much better to make our beliefs a matter of trust. Whenever we seek for the approval of the then current science, we miss out on the strength, beauty, and significance of trust. If you have a strong faith, you need nothing more to act as a confirming agent. That is selling your faith for a mess of pottage. Do we, as Christians really want/need to do that?

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that if you are shipping provisions to feed an army you need ships that can use the wind to move them or you need animals and carriages to haul it. You can move food by having people carry it but those people hauling it have to eat. So if they eat half of what they carry on the way you need to move even more. You hit the same problem as you hit with space travel. You add more fuel but then you need more fuel to get the bigger ship moving. Animals mitigate this to a degree but if you are talking about humans moving the provisions you will need a lot of people to carry it all and all of them are eating too. Generally pre-modern armies foraged to get food (polite word for looting the whole area) because moving supplies is impractical even with wagons and ships.

Ships work best because you don’t have to feed them. Animals eat too and the better animals often can’t subside just by letting them graze so you have to carry some of their food too.

You have accounts of incompetently managed armies in the pre-modern world unable to supply an army within a week’s walk of home. I was just reading of Sparta bungling such a campaign the other day.

Without wheels and animals moving bulk foodstuffs would be done by ship or pretty much not at all. Trade would still be possible with luxury goods and light stuff and messengers could cross throughout a larger state but mass food shipments? Not unless they were using ships.

While this is true of wheat and oat agriculture in Europe, it isn't particularly true of Maize agriculture in Mesoamerica. (I apologize that this is behind a paywall).

Quote

Lack of draft animals is often considered to have been an impediment to urban growth in Mesoamerica. Transport, however, was only one of several factors that influenced the growth of cities. This paper contrasts the effects of energetic efficiency differences between horses and human porters with productivity differences between European and Mesoamerican agricultural systems. Depending on strength and nutritional requirements, horses may be from one to five times as efficient as human porters. Furthermore, horses compete with humans for food. Where the horse played a major transport role, one-third of available, arable land was devoted to oat production. With this in mind, I compare maize versus wheat productivity to show that a unit of land in Mesoamerica could support up to twice as many people as the same unit of land in Europe. Thus, the transport advantage enjoyed by European cities is essentially offset by a more intensive agricultural system in Mesoamerica.

The article isn't terribly recent, but I have read it, and tend to think that it raises a number of valid points. The author also notes that this is fairly theoretical and that too much shouldn't be read into the specifics. But, given the arguments that he makes, it seems to me that the denser agriculture provided by maize would tend to limit the need to domesticate large beasts of burden - which is why we don't see much of that sort of thing in Mesoamerica. This also doesn't deal with the other advantages that come with wheels and beasts of burden - it just focuses on food. The general conclusion is that maize agriculture can support populations more easily than the European agriculture did. Part of this was because of a higher density crop yield (more food on smaller pieces of land - which means more food produced closer to population centers) and the other part of this was that the exclusive use of human porters meant that you weren't having to raise additional crops for beasts of burden. The maize agriculture was simply more efficient.

In turning this back to the Book of Mormon, I have never attempted to try and understand the various discussions about agriculture and food production - especially in the context of conflict in the Book of Mormon. I would imagine that @morgan.deane has probably done more on that topic than anyone else here.

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Whenever we seek for the approval of the then current science, we miss out on the strength, beauty, and significance of trust.

I agree. And I bolded that part of your sentence because science is always changing. If we link religious beliefs to current science, then we are screwed when the science changes.

[Brant Gardner]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Trade can certainly exist but in lighter luxury goods.

The problem is that if you are shipping provisions to feed an army you need ships that can use the wind to move them or you need animals and carriages to haul it.

Or, we could just consult history of Aztec and Maya warfare. Their armies were accompanied by porters, usually 2 porters for 1 warrior, as I remember. All on foot. For the Aztecs, they moved some pretty large armies that way.

Of course, they would also use subordinate cities to replenish supplies as well. 

Still, it is best to consult actual history rather than declare what could not have been done.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Or, we could just consult history of Aztec and Maya warfare. Their armies were accompanied by porters, usually 2 porters for 1 warrior, as I remember. All on foot. For the Aztecs, they moved some pretty large armies that way.

Of course, they would also use subordinate cities to replenish supplies as well. 

Still, it is best to consult actual history rather than declare what could not have been done.

That works over short distances but you can only travel as far as that supply lasts which isn’t that long. My original comment was in reference to supply shipments you get references to in Captain Moroni’s wars. My guess is those were moved by river as having porters haul food to your army only works if the distances are pretty short. Otherwise your porters are eating more than they are delivering.

[morgan.deane]

21 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

While this is true of wheat and oat agriculture in Europe, it isn't particularly true of Maize agriculture in Mesoamerica. (I apologize that this is behind a paywall).

The article isn't terribly recent, but I have read it, and tend to think that it raises a number of valid points. The author also notes that this is fairly theoretical and that too much shouldn't be read into the specifics. But, given the arguments that he makes, it seems to me that the denser agriculture provided by maize would tend to limit the need to domesticate large beasts of burden - which is why we don't see much of that sort of thing in Mesoamerica. This also doesn't deal with the other advantages that come with wheels and beasts of burden - it just focuses on food. The general conclusion is that maize agriculture can support populations more easily than the European agriculture did. Part of this was because of a higher density crop yield (more food on smaller pieces of land - which means more food produced closer to population centers) and the other part of this was that the exclusive use of human porters meant that you weren't having to raise additional crops for beasts of burden. The maize agriculture was simply more efficient.

In turning this back to the Book of Mormon, I have never attempted to try and understand the various discussions about agriculture and food production - especially in the context of conflict in the Book of Mormon. I would imagine that @morgan.deane has probably done more on that topic than anyone else here.

Thanks for the shout out. I'm parachuting into the conversation here so I apologize if I miss anything. But I do have some more research and insight on this that might help. Logistics was a chapter in my first and second books.  Shameless plug: https://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient-ebook/dp/B00KE68NA4/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=V6DgP&content-id=amzn1.sym.ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_p=ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_r=138-5237987-8297339&pd_rd_wg=5gmga&pd_rd_r=f672acd3-3c8b-44cd-b530-484d6bbe5caf&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk

I didn't read the article about horse power, but it sounds interesting and close to what I've read. Ross Hassig's book on Aztec expansion and imperial control makes a strong case for the use of human porters. So the comment that without horses it "pretty much" eliminates other methods fails to account for the rather extensive use of humans as part of supply. The Book of Mormon has an intriguing verse that could refer to porters in Alma 56:28. It mentions provisions as well as women and children among them. That was rather curious so I went through various options about why the women and children were there and concluded they were porters. I thought I had a good blog post on it but the closest I could find is this blog post gives a super short version of my argument (though I'm very proud of the bibliography. Lots of good books I need to reread):  https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2018/04/revisiting-alma-5628-and-women-in-combat.html

That post doesn't include the math. The book with the chapter about Alma 56:28 was published 10 years ago so I forget the specifics, and I may be confusing the math I did for another book about the impacts of Moroni's reforms like more armor (see below).  But I used the calculations of how many pounds of supply ancient infantry and their porters could carry, and calculated how far armies could travel with human porters. (The Aztecs could expand the range by making each city they travelled to partially supply the army marching through it.)  And the Nephite range was only about the distance between Las Vegas and St. George before they run out of food. (And that isn't including refills at cities.) That's not very far, but totally fits the limited geography described in the text, which is about 200 by 500 miles. Alma 56:28 refers to an army that marched from around the city of Zarahemla (Melek technically) to Judea, not the land of desolation to the city of Nephi.

This logistical tether can help better understand the impact of things like Moroni's army wearing heavier armor. The more armor they carry the less food they can transport which limits their range, ties them to logistical lines, makes them vulnerable to the fast moving army of the Lamanites in Helaman 1, and leaves them fewer options against Gadiantion robbers in difficult terrain (Helaman 11). My PhD research was about the early history of the Jiangxi province, which just happen to see an armies repeatedly march up into the mountains to fight communists.  So logistics is one thing among command and communication, few avenues of approach, and the reliance on warlord armies that hampered the effort. With limited logistical support they had to fight and win quickly before they ran out of food, which meant they had to charge right in, which played into the hands of those in a well entrenched defensive position with only a handful of routes to the top.
 

To summarize then, the use of porters conforms to the text of the Book of Mormon, it enhances the text in ways we didn't realize actually, and it conforms Aztec practices in the same region as the most likely BoM geography, and conforms to general military practice. I haven't caught up on the thread, but if there is some argument that claims the Book of Mormon fails on a logistical basis because it doesn't have draft animals used for supply, it is not an accurate argument.

Thanks again for the shout out. I hope this could help the discussion. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by morgan.deane
added detail, can't help myself

[Hamilton Porter]

6 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

Thanks for the shout out. I'm parachuting into the conversation here so I apologize if I miss anything. But I do have some more research and insight on this that might help. Logistics was a chapter in my first and second books.  Shameless plug: https://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient-ebook/dp/B00KE68NA4/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=V6DgP&content-id=amzn1.sym.ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_p=ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_r=138-5237987-8297339&pd_rd_wg=5gmga&pd_rd_r=f672acd3-3c8b-44cd-b530-484d6bbe5caf&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk

I didn't read the article about horse power, but it sounds interesting and close to what I've read. Ross Hassig's book on Aztec expansion and imperial control makes a strong case for the use of human porters. So the comment that without horses it "pretty much" eliminates other methods fails to account for the rather extensive use of humans as part of supply. The Book of Mormon has an intriguing verse that could refer to porters in Alma 56:28. It mentions provisions as well as women and children among them. That was rather curious so I went through various options about why the women and children were there and concluded they were porters. I thought I had a good blog post on it but the closest I could find is this blog post gives a super short version of my argument (though I'm very proud of the bibliography. Lots of good books I need to reread):  https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2018/04/revisiting-alma-5628-and-women-in-combat.html

That post doesn't include the math. The book with the chapter about Alma 56:28 was published 10 years ago so I forget the specifics, and I may be confusing the math I did for another book about the impacts of Moroni's reforms like more armor (see below).  But I used the calculations of how many pounds of supply ancient infantry and their porters could carry, and calculated how far armies could travel with human porters. (The Aztecs could expand the range by making each city they travelled to partially supply the army marching through it.)  And the Nephite range was only about the distance between Las Vegas and St. George before they run out of food. (And that isn't including refills at cities.) That's not very far, but totally fits the limited geography described in the text, which is about 200 by 500 miles. Alma 56:28 refers to an army that marched from around the city of Zarahemla (Melek technically) to Judea, not the land of desolation to the city of Nephi.

This logistical tether can help better understand the impact of things like Moroni's army wearing heavier armor. The more armor they carry the less food they can transport which limits their range, ties them to logistical lines, makes them vulnerable to the fast moving army of the Lamanites in Helaman 1, and leaves them fewer options against Gadiantion robbers in difficult terrain (Helaman 11). My PhD research was about the early history of the Jiangxi province, which just happen to see an armies repeatedly march up into the mountains to fight communists.  So logistics is one thing among command and communication, few avenues of approach, and the reliance on warlord armies that hampered the effort. With limited logistical support they had to fight and win quickly before they ran out of food, which meant they had to charge right in, which played into the hands of those in a well entrenched defensive position with only a handful of routes to the top.
 

To summarize then, the use of porters conforms to the text of the Book of Mormon, it enhances the text in ways we didn't realize actually, and it conforms Aztec practices in the same region as the most likely BoM geography, and conforms to general military practice. I haven't caught up on the thread, but if there is some argument that claims the Book of Mormon fails on a logistical basis because it doesn't have draft animals used for supply, it is not an accurate argument.

Thanks again for the shout out. I hope this could help the discussion. 

Do you have any good sources on the military balance between the Utah territory and the USA before MMM? Or maybe on rhetoric the two sides traded?

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree. And I bolded that part of your sentence because science is always changing. If we link religious beliefs to current science, then we are screwed when the science changes.

Only if one does not have an open canon, and does not believe in progressive revelation.

But in general terms, clearly science is about HOW things supposedly work and religion is about WHY things supposedly work, with both changing all the time, and sometimes getting it wrong.

Is Pluto a planet this week?

We have phrenology and the People's Temple as examples of each of those also.

[morgan.deane]

9 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Do you have any good sources on the military balance between the Utah territory and the USA before MMM? Or maybe on rhetoric the two sides traded?

I don't sorry. 

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

Thanks for the shout out. I'm parachuting into the conversation here so I apologize if I miss anything. But I do have some more research and insight on this that might help. Logistics was a chapter in my first and second books.  Shameless plug: https://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient-ebook/dp/B00KE68NA4/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=V6DgP&content-id=amzn1.sym.ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_p=ed85217c-14c9-4aa0-b248-e47393e2ce12&pf_rd_r=138-5237987-8297339&pd_rd_wg=5gmga&pd_rd_r=f672acd3-3c8b-44cd-b530-484d6bbe5caf&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk

I didn't read the article about horse power, but it sounds interesting and close to what I've read. Ross Hassig's book on Aztec expansion and imperial control makes a strong case for the use of human porters. So the comment that without horses it "pretty much" eliminates other methods fails to account for the rather extensive use of humans as part of supply. The Book of Mormon has an intriguing verse that could refer to porters in Alma 56:28. It mentions provisions as well as women and children among them. That was rather curious so I went through various options about why the women and children were there and concluded they were porters. I thought I had a good blog post on it but the closest I could find is this blog post gives a super short version of my argument (though I'm very proud of the bibliography. Lots of good books I need to reread):  https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2018/04/revisiting-alma-5628-and-women-in-combat.html

That post doesn't include the math. The book with the chapter about Alma 56:28 was published 10 years ago so I forget the specifics, and I may be confusing the math I did for another book about the impacts of Moroni's reforms like more armor (see below).  But I used the calculations of how many pounds of supply ancient infantry and their porters could carry, and calculated how far armies could travel with human porters. (The Aztecs could expand the range by making each city they travelled to partially supply the army marching through it.)  And the Nephite range was only about the distance between Las Vegas and St. George before they run out of food. (And that isn't including refills at cities.) That's not very far, but totally fits the limited geography described in the text, which is about 200 by 500 miles. Alma 56:28 refers to an army that marched from around the city of Zarahemla (Melek technically) to Judea, not the land of desolation to the city of Nephi.

This logistical tether can help better understand the impact of things like Moroni's army wearing heavier armor. The more armor they carry the less food they can transport which limits their range, ties them to logistical lines, makes them vulnerable to the fast moving army of the Lamanites in Helaman 1, and leaves them fewer options against Gadiantion robbers in difficult terrain (Helaman 11). My PhD research was about the early history of the Jiangxi province, which just happen to see an armies repeatedly march up into the mountains to fight communists.  So logistics is one thing among command and communication, few avenues of approach, and the reliance on warlord armies that hampered the effort. With limited logistical support they had to fight and win quickly before they ran out of food, which meant they had to charge right in, which played into the hands of those in a well entrenched defensive position with only a handful of routes to the top.
 

To summarize then, the use of porters conforms to the text of the Book of Mormon, it enhances the text in ways we didn't realize actually, and it conforms Aztec practices in the same region as the most likely BoM geography, and conforms to general military practice. I haven't caught up on the thread, but if there is some argument that claims the Book of Mormon fails on a logistical basis because it doesn't have draft animals used for supply, it is not an accurate argument.

Thanks again for the shout out. I hope this could help the discussion. 

I haven't read your book, so I can't comment on that. I do however want to tell you how much I like its cover! I don't know who designed that for you, but they did a great job. I guess you "cant judge a book by its cover" but I already have a favorable opinion of the book because of its cover. I would say the same thing for most of Kofford books. They must have a great cover designer too. I live in Mexico and am a huge fan of LDS history (especially in Mexico) and of Mesoamerican history in general. Best wishes to you in your work.

[morgan.deane]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I haven't read your book, so I can't comment on that. I do however want to tell you how much I like its cover! I don't know who designed that for you, but they did a great job. I guess you "cant judge a book by its cover" but I already have a favorable opinion of the book because of its cover. I would say the same thing for most of Kofford books. They must have a great cover designer too. I live in Mexico and am a huge fan of LDS history (especially in Mexico) and of Mesoamerican history in general. Best wishes to you in your work.

Thanks Nathan Shumate did it I believe. My daughter is in stem program and wants to be a game designer. Nate was awesome but she's free (mostly, I might have to take her to Chik Fila) and talented, plus she would love the exposure, so I'm going with her from now on. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by morgan.deane