Thinking clearly about archaeology and the Book of Mormon

[_Sammy Jankins]

In this thursdays column for the Deseret News.

Thinking clearly about archaeology and the Book of Mormon

For your consideration.

[_SteelHead]

So you have to be nuanced, north is west, the geography is limited to a square foot, and no physical evidence for the Book of Mormon has yet to be found.....

Does that article actually say anything?

[_Sammy Jankins]

Hamblin’s article closes with an insightful discussion of the difficulties — again, greater than some laypersons might imagine — of properly interpreting ancient texts and archaeological artifacts. His basic point is that many critics of the Book of Mormon have held unrealistic assumptions about it, assumptions that are clearly inappropriate with regard to other ancient texts and peoples.

However difficult it might be, we do have evidence of other pre-Columbian civilizations. Why don't we have evidence of the Nephities?

[_BartBurk]

In this thursdays column for the Deseret News.

Thinking clearly about archaeology and the Book of Mormon

For your consideration.

It took him an entire column to say we really can't know anything about ancient American civilizations. If that is the case you best look where you know the least about ancient America. That's why Meldrum can get away with his Heartland model. It's easier to say everything disappeared when there is next to nothing there.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Hamblin’s article closes with an insightful discussion of the difficulties — again, greater than some laypersons might imagine — of properly interpreting ancient texts and archaeological artifacts. His basic point is that many critics of the Book of Mormon have held unrealistic assumptions about it, assumptions that are clearly inappropriate with regard to other ancient texts and peoples.

However difficult it might be, we do have evidence of other pre-Columbian civilizations. Why don't we have evidence of the Nephities?

Hamblin/Dan P are correct when talking about the names of cities, given in the Book of Mormon, and the names of cities found thus far in Central America. The problem, though, is not as easily sluffed off as Hamblin would like to think. He states: "very few names of Pre-Columbian cities and places are known today".

Many cultures did not give identifying names to the places they lived. The three ancient cultures that I'm familiar with, Vikings of Scandinavia, First Nations of western and northern Canada, and ancient Egypt, had different methods of naming places, but these methods also exhibit similarities. The method used can be simply stated as: "If you're here, you know where you are."

If a river name ended in "issippi" amongst the eastern or woods native peoples, it meant great river. You may recognize that ending. But they had many "issippis". It depended on your perspective. If the river looked big it was an "issippi".

Many modern names of cities and towns in Canada have derived their name from mispronunciations of the local words, used by the First Nations people, that meant, "this is were I live", "this is my home".

The home town of Kha and Merit, (18th Dynasty, Amenhotep II) whose astounding display of grave goods can be viewed in the Turin Museum, lived in a small, government supported village simply named "Village".

https://www.flickr.com/photos/menesje/s ... 066084316/

In Scandinavia, names of towns were often given to inform who was the best known, or who the chieftain was. "Red's village" because Red was the most powerful person in the village at that time.

We do not have place names for many ancient villages/cities found in Central, South and North America. Probably because the people who lived there, knew where they were. "Say something once, why say it again?" (Psycho Killer-Talking Heads)

The only problem is, Joseph Smith didn't know this. He wasn't there. So, in his European influenced, 1800 farm boy ways, he gave names to all the places he mentions in the Book of Mormon. Names of places that the people who lived there hadn't given to the place.

So will we ever find: Agosh, Ani-Anti, Gandiandi, Kishkumin, Mocum, Gimgimno...etc, etc....????

No.

[_moksha]

If it wasn't for the persistence of Mormon critics, Dr. Peterson would not be forced to regal his students on the elements of style, nor waste precious column inches in the Deseret News explaining the nuanced reasons why the City of Zarahemla disappeared into the Sea of Ghosts during the Great Collapse which followed in the wake of the the Red Mountain eruption in Vvardenfell.

Anyway, read Dr. Hamblin's paper and you will know all this stuff. Natural events like the eruption of the Red Mountain are readily explainable and provide the scientific basis on which to study Book of Mormon archeology.

[_Craig Paxton]

There is as much evidence to support the existence of Lilliput, Atlantis, Mordar, Rhun, Harad, Earidor, Neverland, Shangri-La and Narnia as there is to support the existence of Zarahemla, Bountiful or The Land Northward…which is zilch. Knowing that these other lands are fiction how is it then that Mormonism can claim that their claimed lands are real?

If the Book of Mormon lands are real then they HAD to exist in real time and space…if they existed in real time and space then the people that occupied these lands would have left behind evidence of their existence…since they did not…I can only conclude that they never existed and that Book of Mormon lands only existed in the same way that these other fictional lands exist…in a fiction.

Mormon apologist are always coming up with reasons why we shouldn't expect to find evidence to support the Book of Mormon. This is the same logic someone would give if they were arguing that one should not expect to find evidence of a fiction.

[_Sammy Jankins]

From Bill Hamblins article linked to in the article. Wherein Hamblin seeks to advance the case Book of Mormon by pointing to a lack of evidence for a series of Bibilicial events.

And what of Moses and the spectacular events of the Exodus from Egypt? "Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness . . . we have no evidence whatsoever."84 As an example, Dever cites "recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for 38 years."85 Surely such a lengthy stay by such a large group, somewhere during or prior to 1200 B.C., would leave considerable evidence. And, indeed, the Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea "have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C."86

Moving forward in history to the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, Dever notes once again that "the evidence is largely negative. In particular, the 'conquest model,' derived principally from the Book of Joshua, has been largely discredited. That Israel did emerge in Canaan in the early Iron Age is beyond doubt. But archaeology has not shown that the settlement followed a series of destructions, miraculous or otherwise."87 Professor Dever's verdict is straightforward: "The Bible cannot simply be read at face value as history."88

Even some conservative Bible scholars concur with Dever's basic position on the lack of archaeological confirmation of much of the Bible. John Bright insists that, "It cannot be stressed too strongly that in spite of all the light that it has cast on the patriarchal age, in spite of all that it has done to vindicate the antiquity and authenticity of the tradition, archaeology has not proved that the stories of the patriarchs happened just as the Bible tells them. In the nature of the case it cannot do so."89

I do not reproduce such comments because I necessarily agree with Professor Dever, or because—as some anti-Mormons like to imagine—Latter-day Saints enjoy demeaning the Bible. Mormons, although not fundamentalist inerrantists, believe in the basic historicity of biblical events. But I do want to draw attention to the limitations of archaeology for "proving" historical texts or religious beliefs.

I think Hamblin was writing for Christian critics of Mormonism. Specifically literalist Christians. Because his arguments don't work if one doesn't believe these events really happened.

Let me get this argument straight. I can more easily believe the speculator claims made by the Book of Mormon, because there are other speculator claims that can't be verified? And this somehow reflects on the limits of archeology. Or maybe Hamblin, it's because those events didn't actually happen.

[_robuchan]

From Bill Hamblins article linked to in the article. Wherein Hamblin seeks to advance the case Book of Mormon by pointing to a lack of evidence for a series of Bibilicial events.

And what of Moses and the spectacular events of the Exodus from Egypt? "Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness . . . we have no evidence whatsoever."84 As an example, Dever cites "recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for 38 years."85 Surely such a lengthy stay by such a large group, somewhere during or prior to 1200 B.C., would leave considerable evidence. And, indeed, the Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea "have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C."86

Moving forward in history to the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, Dever notes once again that "the evidence is largely negative. In particular, the 'conquest model,' derived principally from the Book of Joshua, has been largely discredited. That Israel did emerge in Canaan in the early Iron Age is beyond doubt. But archaeology has not shown that the settlement followed a series of destructions, miraculous or otherwise."87 Professor Dever's verdict is straightforward: "The Bible cannot simply be read at face value as history."88

Even some conservative Bible scholars concur with Dever's basic position on the lack of archaeological confirmation of much of the Bible. John Bright insists that, "It cannot be stressed too strongly that in spite of all the light that it has cast on the patriarchal age, in spite of all that it has done to vindicate the antiquity and authenticity of the tradition, archaeology has not proved that the stories of the patriarchs happened just as the Bible tells them. In the nature of the case it cannot do so."89

I do not reproduce such comments because I necessarily agree with Professor Dever, or because—as some anti-Mormons like to imagine—Latter-day Saints enjoy demeaning the Bible. Mormons, although not fundamentalist inerrantists, believe in the basic historicity of biblical events. But I do want to draw attention to the limitations of archaeology for "proving" historical texts or religious beliefs.

I think Hamblin was writing for Christian critics of Mormonism. Specifically literalist Christians. Because his arguments don't work if one doesn't believe these events really happened.

Let me get this argument straight. I can more easily believe the speculator claims made by the Book of Mormon, because there are other speculator claims that can't be verified? And this somehow reflects on the limits of archeology. Or maybe Hamblin, it's because those events didn't actually happen.

Old FARMS doesn't age too well. These arguments seem silly now as it becomes more common even for believers to reject Bible literalism. Also, I love the article title “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon”. Wow. If you don't take the FARM approach to Book of Mormon geography and archaelogy you are Anti-Mormon. OK. Pretty lame for DCP to recirculate this garbage. Even more lame to compare Hamblin's article to a grammar book, in order to learn basic fundamentals on the topic. In "Elements of Style" you learn clear, concise fundamental rules which you can use in order to write correctly. In Hamblin's article, you learn why it's impossible to even start analyzing Book of Mormon archaeology. Yeah, not comparable at all.

[_malkie]

Interesting choice of a prescriptive grammar book (my emphases):

So I was delighted, several years ago, to reread William Strunk and E.B. White’s little classic, “The Elements of Style,” and to realize that it covered virtually every recurrent student writing error. I immediately began to recommend it to my classes and, sometimes, even to require it. If they’ll pay close attention to it, I tell them, they’ll avoid most, if not all, of the mistakes that many of them regularly and predictably commit.

In criticizing The Elements of Style, Geoffrey Pullum, professor of linguistics at Edinburgh University, and co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), said that:

The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why.

Pullum has demonstrated, for example, that the authors misunderstood what constitutes the passive voice, and he criticized their proscription of established and unproblematic English usages, such as the split infinitive and the use of which in a restrictive relative clause.[16] He further criticized The Elements of Style in Language Log, a blog written by linguists about language, for promoting linguistic prescriptivism and hypercorrection among Anglophones, and called it "the book that ate America's brain".