DiscussMormonism.com

On MAD, I brought up the fact that there are no horses in pre-columbian art. Have we found post-Columbian art that depicts horses?

Also, it is my understanding that we have found bones for almost every type of major animal that we assume existed during Book of Mormon times. Is this correct?

On MAD, I brought up the fact that there are no horses in pre-columbian art. Have we found post-Columbian art that depicts horses?

Also, it is my understanding that we have found bones for almost every type of major animal that we assume existed during Book of Mormon times. Is this correct?

There is post-Columbian art depicting horses in general, such as this rock painting in New Mexico:

Rock Carving

It did take a while for the horse to be dispersed and populate through the New World. And if they’re looking for Mesoamerican art, in particular, depicting the horse, there is the inconvenient fact that the culture was pretty much decimated by that time. And, of course, the Maya and most of those associated cultures had long passed their peak, including the production of art. Plus, the cultures were being Christianized, so the art wouldn’t be relying on the old myths involving animals. The closest area that was highly conducive to the horse would be Mexico, and this was the area that spanned into the Southwest US region. Do they really doubt that the horse became part of their mythology and art?

In regards to the animal bones, I don’t recall any text explicitly stating that bones have been found for almost every type of major animal, but certainly the list of animal bones that have been discovered is very long. I think it is likely that the statement “we have found bones for almost every type of major animal” in the region and time period is correct, but I can’t swear by it 100%, or provide a citation that says exactly that. Certainly animals with large bones, such as the horse, are more likely to survive in some state. I discuss this on my website here:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

Just look, for one quick example, at the variety of animal bones discovered in just one area in Belize:

Ancient Mesoamerica page 176

Scottie, you do realize that nothing you say will convince the True Believers. It is ludicrous for anyone with even a cursory understanding of ancient Mesoamerica to suggest that an unusual and striking animal such as the horse – that was supposedly directly connected to royalty in particular – would not be pictured in their art. Trying to parse about post-conquest art is a desperate maneuver. They will pick around the edges, trying their best to find any possible detail that could create uncertainty in the mind of uninformed readers.
Out of curiosity, which MAD thread is this?

This timeline may help:

http://nmhp.org/history.htm

Oh Beastie...you should read what Batman says. It would make your head spin.

Link

In a nutshell, since the Book of Mormon says there were horses, these "so called" experts are wrong. The evidence is EXTREMELY hard to find, and they just haven't found it yet.

My question about horses starts on post #26.

The question about post-Columbian art was mine. Wouldn't it make sense that if there was art after we know the horse was there that there would be art before it? I was trying to get it through his thick skull that there is evidence supporting no horses. It's not just that we haven't found horse bones.

Thanks, Beastie.

The question about post-Columbian art was mine. Wouldn't it make sense that if there was art after we know the horse was there that there would be art before it? I was trying to get it through his thick skull that there is evidence supporting no horses. It's not just that we haven't found horse bones.

The problem is that the specific Mesoamerican cultures in question were largely "over" by the point that horses would have been introduced, in one way or the other. There were still groups of people descended from the former powerful culture, but by the time the horse would have been a presence (such as in mexico), the culture - including art - was under Spanish and Christian influence.

Given how late the horse became a presence anywhere near Mesoamerica (again, Mexico), the culture that would have been presenting works of art linking the horse to their particular mythology was long gone (or under the thumb of Christian Spaniards, hidden). But certainly the horse had a tremendous impact in Indian cultures in the regions where the horse spread successfully. This is the region I said would be part of the southwest region, and clearly the horse had a tremendous impact on those people. (see my earlier linked image)

If I understand your question, it's kind of like looking for pictorial representations of the automobile from the Romans. It just doesn't work, because they were gone by the time the automobile arrived.

The book "Horses through Time" states that mainly three areas of the New World provided the grasslands necessary for the spread of the horse - the plains of Venezuala and Colombia, the pampas of Argentina and Uruguay, and the prairies that stretch from Mexico to Canada. The closest to the Book of Mormon region is Mexico, and the closest time period would be the mid 1500's.

Part of the point about Mesoamerican art is that it reflects a religious ideology that relied on animal imagery. The later cultures in Mexico did share some of those traits, as do the later cultures within the US region, but I don't know how useful these later cultures would be in ascertaining whether the ancient mesoamericans, during the Book of Mormon time period, would have included the horse in their imagery. What is most useful, in my opinion, is to see whether their imagery included other powerful animals we know were around during that time period - and it does.

To me, the important thing to remember is that Mesoamerica art often revolved around religious ceremonies involving royalty, and their transformation to their mystical animal companions. So Book of Mormon apologists insist that the horse was perhaps very limited in number (and that's why we can't find any bones), and associated only with royalty. But that argument makes it more likely that the horse would be included in those very images of royalty and their animal companions. Their argument is like saying the King is associated with a certain crown, but we shouldn't expect to see that crown in the art depicting the king.