DiscussMormonism.com

Summary of Shang-Olmec Resemblances The traits and complexes just reviewed vary greatly in magnitude and degree of specificity. At one extreme is a distinctive kind of skull deformation; at the opposite extreme is a settlement pattern embracing a number of characteristics (earth platforms, north-south orientation, wattle-and-daub buildings, ceremonial-administrative centers, etc.), each of which might have been listed separately. Expression ranges from material objects, such as jade celts, to abstract concepts, such as the religious significance of felines and mountains. Some elements are well documented archaeologically or historically in both areas, the long-range acquisition of products being an example. Others are inferences, among them the suggestion that batons were symbols of rank among the Olmec as they were among the Shang. Another variable is the disparate stylistic expression of traits that seem comparable in general conception, obvious in the representations of felines. Considered as a whole, however, there are a remarkable number of striking resemblances between the inception and content of the earliest civilizations of China and Mesoamerica. They can be summarized as follows: (1) At about 1200 B.C., there was a quantum change in Mesoamerica from a village farming way of life to Olmec civilization; a similarly abrupt transformation took place about 500 years earlier in China, when the Shang Dynasty was imposed on a pre-existing Neolithic population. (2) The Shang and the Olmec are credited with the possession of writing, a reliable calendar, a social structure capable of procuring and directing labor for large-scale construction, an organized religion administered by a priesthood, and a trade or acquisition network that channeled materials from distant sources to the administrative or ceremonial centers; both treated jade as a material of exceptional value. (3) The settlement pattern of both cultures consisted of small, scattered villages, the inhabitants of which contributed labor, luxury goods, food, and other commodities and services to centers occupied by an aristocracy. Among the Olmec, the nature and composition of the latter is unknown; among the Shang, the documents describe a hierarchy composed of a sovereign, administrators of differing rank, and feudal lords. (4) The principal structures in Olmec centers and Shang capitals were rectangular earth platforms surmounted by perishable wattle-and-daub buildings; the main axis of the components and the site as a whole was north-south. Underground drains, dedicatory caches, and tombs are among the associated features. (5) Shang documents indicate that the emperor and the subordinate lords employed specific types of jade batons as symbols of authority and rank; Olmec bas-reliefs depict elaborately attired men, some of whom hold a staff or plaque of similar shape in one or both hands. (6) The feline was a major focus of religious expression among both Shang and Olmec, and was associated with the earth. Depiction ranges from realistic to highly stylized and from fanged and snarling to gentle and placid. Frequently, the lower jaw was omitted. Serpents and birds were also emphasized and features of these animals were sometimes combined in the iconography of both cultures to produce a dragon. What is the significance of these resemblances? Are they evidence of the arrival in Mesoamerica about 1200 B.C. of immigrants of Shang origin or are they independent duplications explainable by the operation of general laws of cultural evolution? Let us consider some of the difficulties in choosing between these alternatives.

... but Betty Meggers, ... is able to produce more hits between the two than Mormon apologists are able to produce between Mesoamerican civilization and the fictitious Book of Mormon peoples..

"Your great bibliographical project . . . will greatly enhance the quality of discussion in the field." Joseph Needham, history of Asian science, Cambridge University.

"Impressive bibliography and monumental effort." Betty J. Meggers, anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.

"A magnificent contribution . . . amusing, enlightening, and unbelievably useful. I am one of the better-informed people on this subject, but I had not seen ten percent of the papers cited." George F. Carter, geography and anthropology, Texas A&M.

"Nobody can afford to offer an opinion on this subject from now on without having carefully considered this essential volume." David H. Kelley, archaeology, University of Calgary.

"This jewel of a work amazes, awes, and pleases me." Mary Ritchie Key, linguistics, University of California, Irvine.

"Extremely complete." Walter Gardini, anthropology, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

"Monumental accomplishment." Hasso von Winning, archaeology, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

"Incredible. . . . An extremely important compilation." Stephen C. Jett, geography, University of California, Davis.

Daniel Peterson wrote:How familiar are you with John Sorenson's work on transoceanic contacts? Here are three items from this particular resident of "the FARMS clown car":

John L. Sorenson. "The Significance of an Apparent Relationship between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica." In Man across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts, edited by C. L. Riley, J. C. Kelley, C. W. Pennington, and R. L. Rands, 219—41. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971.)

John L. Sorenson and Martin Raish, eds. Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, 2d ed. 2 vols. (Provo: Research Press, 1996).

John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen. "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages." In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, edited by Victor H. Mair, 238—97. (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2006).

Have you read any of this material? I append, for your edification, comments from some of those who have actually read it -- in particular, the two-volume annotated bibliography. You'll notice that there's a response from Betty Meggers:

"Your great bibliographical project . . . will greatly enhance the quality of discussion in the field." Joseph Needham, history of Asian science, Cambridge University.

"Impressive bibliography and monumental effort." Betty J. Meggers, anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.

"A magnificent contribution . . . amusing, enlightening, and unbelievably useful. I am one of the better-informed people on this subject, but I had not seen ten percent of the papers cited." George F. Carter, geography and anthropology, Texas A&M.

"Nobody can afford to offer an opinion on this subject from now on without having carefully considered this essential volume." David H. Kelley, archaeology, University of Calgary.

"This jewel of a work amazes, awes, and pleases me." Mary Ritchie Key, linguistics, University of California, Irvine.

"Extremely complete." Walter Gardini, anthropology, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

"Monumental accomplishment." Hasso von Winning, archaeology, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

"Incredible. . . . An extremely important compilation." Stephen C. Jett, geography, University of California, Davis.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Now, I don't believe there was any contact between the Shang Chinese and the Olmec,

Calculus Crusader wrote:but Betty Meggers, who is probably more well known and accomplished than any of the Mesoamericanist occupants of the FARMS/FAIR clown car,

Calculus Crusader wrote:is able to produce more hits between the two than Mormon apologists are able to produce between Mesoamerican civilization and the fictitious Book of Mormon peoples.

Calculus Crusader wrote:I am not familiar with Sorenson's work, apart from his Mormon apologia. However, as I posted in another thread:

...Your friends, who have expertise in the field (but who are still crackpots when they defend the self-serving lies and delusions of Joseph Smith, Jr.)...

I did not suggest Sorenson does not publish legitimate scholarship. (I do not buy transoceanic contact, but I think it is a legitimate avenue of exploration.) However, when he engages in Mormon apologia, he is an occupant of said clown car.

maklelan wrote:

Calculus Crusader wrote:Now, I don't believe there was any contact between the Shang Chinese and the Olmec,

Because your high school history memories are far more reliable than anything that conflicts with them.

Calculus Crusader wrote:but Betty Meggers, who is probably more well known and accomplished than any of the Mesoamericanist occupants of the FARMS/FAIR clown car,

Actually one of the newest and best translations of the Popol Vuh was done by one of the "occupants of the FARMS/FAIR clown car":

http://www.amazon.com/Popol-Vuh-Sacred- ... 900&sr=1-3

I know it takes time, but getting real facts makes your arguments better than if you just make them up, no matter how much they may slake your anger and belligerence toward Mormonites.

maklelan wrote:

Calculus Crusader wrote:I am not familiar with Sorenson's work, apart from his Mormon apologia. However, as I posted in another thread:

...Your friends, who have expertise in the field (but who are still crackpots when they defend the self-serving lies and delusions of Joseph Smith, Jr.)...

I did not suggest Sorenson does not publish legitimate scholarship. (I do not buy transoceanic contact, but I think it is a legitimate avenue of exploration.) However, when he engages in Mormon apologia, he is an occupant of said clown car.

So you're arguing, basically, that anyone from any tier of academia is an idiot if they argue for a conclusion you've dismissed through absolutely no research of your own.

By the way, great job responding to the fact that the scholar you quoted praised Sorenson's work. Way to drive home that point about the clowns at FARM/FAIR.

Calculus Crusader wrote:This is not difficult. Mormon scholars engaging in Mormon apologia are crackpots. However, this does not preclude them from publishing legitimate scholarship apart from Mormon apologia.