Book of Mormon Horses and Math

[ZealouslyStriving]

Thoughts?

 

 

[blackstrap]

Sorry, could not resist!

Bing Videos

[Pyreaux]

This is based on the decade-old, non-LDS, "math" of 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. His argument was simply that Columbus may have already shipped Sorraias to the New World.

Firstly, the mtDNA analyses, done by a German institute for molecular biological research, shows that some American mustangs and the Sorraia horse, are genetically related. And the Sorraia is not the overly domesticated horses the Spanish used, it's 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 common 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 our 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

Secondly, the "math", the Plains Native Americans have long held that they had the American Mustang well before Columbus, but they are generally dismissed as legends.

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.

So, 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.

Thirdly, the modern "Spanish Mustang" or caballine horse, "E. caballus", is a genetic equivalent to "E. lambei", 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.

This is used by animal rights activists to claim they are a native species (though they mean it was reintroduced) and have rights to live in their natural habitat, against the practices of the Bureau of Land Management profit motive to declare them an invasive species they can move off land to sell the land.

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

[webbles]

I was just reading about new information about the domestication of horses - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/horse-domestication-story-gets-a-surprising-rewrite/.  It mentioned that new research shows that horses were spreading through the Americas before the Pueblo Revolt.  The Pueblo Revolt is when lots of horses were captured by Native Americans and would be when a lot of the initial breeding stock, but Native Americans did have horses before the Pueblo Revolt.

I did notice some inaccuracies in the video.  They talked about the horses in Jamestown being a nuisance but those are English horses.  We have records of the English bringing over horses into Jamestown.  Several were mares along with stallions.  The earliest record is in the 1640s.

I also believe Coronado had hundreds of horses (both mares and stallions) when he did is expedition of 1542.  He traveled through the Sonora Valley and into the Great Plains.  I don't believe he ever mentioned seeing horses with any of the people he met.

I don't find this video to be very helpful in the discussion about horses.  The experts who are saying that horses were introduced after the Spanish conquest don't care about whether or not the it disproves the Book of Mormon.  They are just trying to figure out what happened.

[Calm]

Ward radio bugs me, I like more consistent in tone, lower in tone….my ears just get pickier and pickier by the year.  So I just listened to about a minute before I shut it down.

It was saying something about how they only brought mares, no stallions if I understood it correctly.  That seems to contradict your comment.  Any idea what they re talking about so I don’t have to subject my delicate fussy ears to the less than melodic sounds (I need to get an app that allows me to change pitches of voices, lol).

Google did not help

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was saying something about how they only brought mares, no stallions if I understood it correctly.  That seems to contradict your comment.  Any idea what they re talking about

Invertedly, the early 16th century, when Spanish explorers and conquistadors, including those led by Cortes, brought horses, it’s widely believed that the Spanish brought only stallions, not mares, during their initial expeditions.

The rationale for this was; horses are generally easier to transport in smaller numbers and the stallions could be used for controlled breeding once they arrived, if necessary. 

The theory goes horses that the Spanish brought eventually escape (undocumented) or were released into the wild (very unlikely), and over time, they adapted and multiplied.

However, there are debates among scholars about whether the horses originally introduced were purely stallions or whether some mares might have been included in early shipments, even if they weren't documented. Some sources suggest that there may have been some mares brought during later expeditions, but the overwhelming consensus is that the early shipments were primarily stallions.

Thus, the general understanding is that horses were first introduced as all male animals that eventually bred in the wild, giving rise to the mustang population. I guess life, uh, finds a way...

Edited December 5, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Invertedly, the early 16th century, when Spanish explorers and conquistadors, including those led by Cortes, brought horses, it’s widely believed that the Spanish brought only stallions, not mares, during their initial expeditions.

The rationale for this was; horses are generally easier to transport in smaller numbers and the stallions could be used for controlled breeding once they arrived, if necessary. 

The theory goes horses that the Spanish brought eventually escape (undocumented) or were released into the wild (very unlikely), and over time, they adapted and multiplied.

However, there are debates among scholars about whether the horses originally introduced were purely stallions or whether some mares might have been included in early shipments, even if they weren't documented. Some sources suggest that there may have been some mares brought during later expeditions, but the overwhelming consensus is that the early shipments were primarily stallions.

Thus, the general understanding is that horses were first introduced as all male animals that eventually bred in the wild, giving rise to the mustang population. I guess life, uh, finds a way...

So why is the video saying they only took mares?

[Pyreaux]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

So why is the video saying they only took mares?

Because it's easy to get wrong when you air Live and they mixed it up in their head, or their "guy" on Discord did or their source did. Source telephone game.

Brought to you by:

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Thoughts?

The cute little tapir in this illus reminds me that the Maya til, or tzimin “tapirs,” or (as used by the Maya to describe the mounts of the Conquistadores) “horses.”  Indeed, tapirs are related to horses, and can be found in peaceful herds.  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jp6hDaClMv0 .

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The cute little tapir in this illus reminds me that the Maya til, or tzimin “tapirs,” or (as used by the Maya to describe the mounts of the Conquistadores) “horses.”  Indeed, tapirs are related to horses, and can be found in peaceful herds.  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jp6hDaClMv0 .

Can they be used as work animals for plowing, packing etc..?

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

So why is the video saying they only took mares?

I tried to fact check that statement. My initial searches were not fruitful.
"Of the 16 horses, eleven were stallions of the Cordoba Strain, including ‘El Mozilla”, Cortez’s own horse." --Saddlebox
But that website isn't citing any sources for their information. The argument Barnes makes is that stallions were just too ornery to coop up in a ship. A rather meh argument. The rate of breeding and distance arguments are more sound. The Pueblo Revolt doesn't allow for sufficient time (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/). Pizarro brought horses to Peru in the 1500's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Pizarro).

Anyway, I'm willing to give the no-horses in North America before the Spanish argument the same patience and grace that I tend to afford the Book of Mormon when some of our knowledge is insufficient. It has some difficulties but

[Nofear]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Ward radio bugs me

It's definitely a mixed bag. The female only hosted shows are more measured in their tone and demeanor. I don't think I've heard anything of worth from Kwaku. Still, my sample size is limited. The show is kind of like the apocrypha. Some really good stuff. Some stuff that is pretty "cray cray".

Jonah Barnes, I think persuasively argues about how thoroughly the Josiah reforms expunged overt Messiah references. In other places, his science is a bit sloppy. He admits that much of his positions are not academically rigorous. But, when you're driving a tank in your driver's license test, you are probably going to miss a few things and knock over some cones (ie make a few mistakes, but the argument persists).

Edited December 6, 2024 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

One other problem is that the economic model of the Plains Indians don’t make sense. It wasn’t in any kind of long-term equilibrium. If they had been hunting on horseback for centuries they likely would have killed off the buffalo themselves or switched to some kind of herding model instead of hunting. This heavily suggests that the horse was a relatively recent addition. If they had had horses centuries before Columbus things would almost certainly look differently.

I also don’t trust oral stories of how far back customs and laws and traditions go. If any culture holds up some part of their culture and tells you it goes back to time immemorial they are almost always wrong.

Sparta receiving their laws from Lycurgus is one of my favorite examples. Even if you take their own chronology as true (which it wasn’t) the laws Lycurgus supposedly gave them covered things that wouldn’t have made any sense at the time. Also Lycurgus is almost certainly mythical himself. He is exactly the kind of figure you would make up if you had nothing to tie him to actual history. 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Can they be used as work animals for plowing, packing etc..?

They can be domesticated (as you can see in the video), they can be herded, etc., and they make good eating.

Other useful animals in the Americas include armadillo, alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), agouti, capybara, iguana, gomphothere, etc.

[sunstoned]

On 12/6/2024 at 7:02 PM, The Nehor said:

One other problem is that the economic model of the Plains Indians don’t make sense. It wasn’t in any kind of long-term equilibrium. If they had been hunting on horseback for centuries they likely would have killed off the buffalo themselves or switched to some kind of herding model instead of hunting. This heavily suggests that the horse was a relatively recent addition. If they had had horses centuries before Columbus things would almost certainly look differently.

I also don’t trust oral stories of how far back customs and laws and traditions go. If any culture holds up some part of their culture and tells you it goes back to time immemorial they are almost always wrong.

Sparta receiving their laws from Lycurgus is one of my favorite examples. Even if you take their own chronology as true (which it wasn’t) the laws Lycurgus supposedly gave them covered things that wouldn’t have made any sense at the time. Also Lycurgus is almost certainly mythical himself. He is exactly the kind of figure you would make up if you had nothing to tie him to actual history. 

Agreed. The introduction of horses dramatically altered cultures in many ways in the Old World. Horses became an integral part of tribal cultures throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. They were honored in art, stories (written and verbal), songs, and ceremonies.  The impact of the horse would produce many artifacts well beyond a few questionable bones. These artifacts do exist in the Americas, but not before the 1500s.

Edited December 8, 2024 by sunstoned

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed. The introduction of horses dramatically altered cultures in many ways in the Old World. Horses became an integral part of tribal cultures throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. They were honored in art, stories (written and verbal), songs, and ceremonies.  The impact of the horse would produce many artifacts well beyond a few questionable bones. These artifacts do exist in the Americas, but not before the 1500s.

At one time, wild horses were hunted for food, as with other game animals, and horse is served in European restaurants today.  In America, we only serve horsemeat to pets.

We know that precolumbian horse existed in the Americas, and we have genetic evidence of it.  Whether it had been domesticated, and was used to haul wagons or was ridden by people is another question.

[sunstoned]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At one time, wild horses were hunted for food, as with other game animals, and horse is served in European restaurants today.  In America, we only serve horsemeat to pets.

We know that precolumbian horse existed in the Americas, and we have genetic evidence of it.  Whether it had been domesticated, and was used to haul wagons or was ridden by people is another question.

(Bolding mine) Precolumbian horses existed 12000 years ago, which is not anywhere close to BoM times. The Precolumbian Native American cultures were not horse cultures. 

[Kevin Christensen]

24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

(Bolding mine) Precolumbian horses existed 12000 years ago, which is not anywhere close to BoM times. The Precolumbian Native American cultures were not horse cultures. 

The Book of Mormon mentions horses (using the word in the translation) in a few verses (ceremonial transport and food sources. Bible quotation) but in no way describes a horse culture.  There are no mentions of horses in any migration or as a regular or common mode of travel or in battle in 100 distinct wars or use in agriculture or as a measure of wealth or status.   Whatever horses happen be in the Book of Mormon culture, they were not what they were in Joseph Smith's culture, which was a horse culure.

FWIW 

Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

(Bolding mine) Precolumbian horses existed 12000 years ago, which is not anywhere close to BoM times. The Precolumbian Native American cultures were not horse cultures. 

Actually, we know for certain that precolumbian horse survived much longer than that.  For example, we have horse sedaDNA at Stevens Village, Yukon Flats (along the Yukon River), Alaska, at least as late as 5,650 BC (C14), along with Mammoth DNA.  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 .  Meanwhile, we have precolumbian horse and mammoth bones from excavations in Mesoamerica, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 10/1 (2001):76–77, 80, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=jbms .  The scientists finding the horse bones expressed consternation.

Three other instances of horse bone finds were dated to precolumbian times. One found in a cave near El Paso, Texas dates to between 6020 and 5890 B.C.  Another radiocarbon date was from a cave in Colorado, providing an age of 1260 to 1400 A.D.  A third date on horse bone from a cave in the Yucatan has been dated between 1230 and 1300 A.D.   Steven E. Jones and Wade E. Miller, “State-of-the-art physical analysis of archaeological finds and historical artifacts: pre-Columbian horses in the Americas,” July 30, 2004. The three yielded dates that were post-Pleistocene and precolumbian: Pratt Cave, Texas 6020-5890 B.C, Wolf Spider Cave Colorado 1260-1400 A.D.., and Cozumel Island, Mexico 1230-1300.

[supersc]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The three yielded dates that were post-Pleistocene and precolumbian: Pratt Cave, Texas 6020-5890 B.C, Wolf Spider Cave Colorado 1260-1400 A.D.., and Cozumel Island, Mexico 1230-1300.

All it takes is one valid carbon-dated horse bone in situ in the America's that is dated between ~2500 BC and ~1492 AD to bring into question the scientific community's currently accepted theories.

[Nofear]

Perhaps there were indeed pre-Columbian horses in North America extant during that time but they weren't domesticated and were just wild. Yet, once word got out that we humans could ride them, the concept took off like wildfire. Could reconcile two potentially conflicting issues: the population growth and the cultural integration. But, maybe there's a different explanation or one of the two conflicting proposals is correct and I'm just not sufficiently persuaded despite it being correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

.............. they weren't domesticated and were just wild. .............................. I'm just not sufficiently persuaded despite it being correct.

During most of human history, horses were not domesticated and ridden.  Hence, no horse culture.

E. T. Shev, “The Introduction of the Domesticated Horse in Southwest Asia,” Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 44/1 (2016):123-136, online at https://journal.archaeology.nsc.ru/jour/article/view/191?locale=en_US .

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, supersc said:

All it takes is one valid carbon-dated horse bone in situ in the America's that is dated between ~2500 BC and ~1492 AD to bring into question the scientific community's currently accepted theories.

That is true of almost everything. If we find a T-Rex bone dated to the same period we’d have to question a lot of our currently accepted theories.