Another tall tale from the annals of Book of Mormon Archaeology?

[cacheman]

Thanks for starting this discussion Gad. I first came across the reference to V. vinifera seeds being found in Chiapas a year or two ago. I've done some work with native grape species, and have an interest (personally and professionally) in native edible species. So, this claim really caught my attention. In trying to get to the bottom of this grand claim, I came across Sorenson and Johannssen's Sino-Platonic Papers article. Physics guy has described some of scholarly sloppiness as well as some of the contrasts between what is found there and what Sorenson later claims. As I delved deeper into this, I was surprised to see how many people (including scholars) seemed to accept his claims without checking up on it. Mormon's Codex was published under the Maxwell Institute imprint, and according to his son, the manuscript spent at least 2.5 years in the review process. Did they have any archaeobotanists, ethnobotanists, or horticulturists serve as reviewers? I can't imagine they did. I can't fault the average person for not realizing what a spectacular claim that was, but certainly someone with a plant background would have known what a big deal it would be to find late pre-classic era V. vinifera seeds in mesoamerica, and would have thoroughly vetted the claim. But, then Dr. Sorenson did say "I have always worked out in great detail crucial aspects of the data I use, especially when the results contradict the position of conventional scholars" (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/con ... mons-codex). Maybe the reviewers just figured that he had already worked out the grape data in great detail.

It got worse though once I was able to get access to the Martinez-Muriel thesis.... The single wild grape seed that was found was in layer #2 of the particular pit which corresponds with the late classic to early post-classic era (not the late pre-classic period). That's quite a difference! Martinez-Muriel also never claimed or suggested that the seed was anything other than a wild grape species. The Miranda report of finding V. vinifera was part of a modern vegetation survey, and he went at length to discuss the failed attempts in growing commercial vineyards in the Chiapas area. Of course, I don't believe that Sorenson ever actually looked at the Miranda volumes. As physics guy mentioned, they use information from the later volumes, but only cite the earlier 1952-53 volumes (He doesn't just do this for the grape material, but also when discussing other plants he wrote about in the Sino-Platonic Papers article).

I can't imagine that this is the only topic in Mormon's Codex that plays fast and loose with the source materials. Not only has this experience led me to be skeptical of any claims that Dr. Sorenson makes, but it also makes me wonder about the integrity of the Maxwell Institute peer-review process and the credulity of the scholars who have promoted this.

I have more information related to this that I could share later when I have time. Part of me wants to acquire a copy of Mormon's Codex and other books of his to investigate other plant-related claims. I enjoy puzzles like this, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile. When I first brought up some of these issues, it didn't garner much attention.

Fun fact: Martinez-Muriel mentions Ferguson, Sorenson, and the NWAF in his thesis, and cites an article by Sorenson.

Another fun fact: Of the 5 libraries listed in WorldCat as having the Martinez-Muriel thesis, the interlibrary loan that I received was from the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU. It was last checked out in 2004, and there are pencil markings in the sections of the book that discusses Vitis.

-cacheman

[Dr Moore]

So what did native Americans use to make alcohol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_a ... _Americans
- Cactus
- Corn
- Mountain laurel (a kind of pea shrub)
- Aloe
- Maguey
- Prickly pear
- Pitaya
- Berries (Elderberries, Raspberries)
- "other fruits"
- "and even grapes" [24]
[24] Abbott PJ (1996). "American Indian and Alaska native aboriginal use of alcohol in the United States". Am Indian Alaska Native Ment Health Res. 7 (2): 1–13. doi:10.5820/aian.0702.1996.1. PMID 8935245. S2CID 27548569.

I can't access the document, but "... and even grapes" suggests a thinner connection than all of the other types of wine.

Book of Mormon describes just one source for wine -- grapes. Is this why V. vinifera matters so much to Sorenson et al?

Mosiah 11:15
And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people.

[Gadianton]

As I delved deeper into this, I was surprised to see how many people (including scholars) seemed to accept his claims without checking up on it.

Glad you discovered us over here, Cacheman. Why were you surprised? I assume you mean "TBM" scholars. Is there any incentive whatsoever to find a mistake?

Well, there is an incentive for Heartland scholars. I noticed when I was looking around that the Heartlanders are all over this one.

The single wild grape seed

nice...

I can't imagine that this is the only topic in Mormon's Codex that plays fast and loose with the source materials.

It definitely isn't. A number of years ago a similar issue was discovered regarding smelting. Two odd footnotes were used to make the case, and it sparked quite a fire with the apologists.

I have always worked out in great detail crucial aspects of the data I use, especially when the results contradict the position of conventional scholars

Perhaps he meant worked to obscure his tracks. A couple of obscure footnotes meant to provide plausibility for steel swords just doesn't line up with "worked out in great detail crucial aspects of the data"

I have more information related to this that I could share later when I have time. Part of me wants to acquire a copy of Mormon's Codex and other books of his to investigate other plant-related claims.

I, for one, would love to see what other information you have on this.

[Physics Guy]

Thanks, cacheman, for tracking down Miranda 1975-1976 and confirming that it had nothing to do with pre-Columbian Vitis vinifera. I was wondering about that. It really appears that Sorenson and Johannessen gave Muriel-Martinez's thesis only an awfully quick read before jumping to the happy conclusion that it was decent evidence of Eurasian wine grapes in pre-Columbian Mexico.

Maybe it all really did hang just on seeing silvestre and thinking silvestris. If so then that would be an understandable and even pardonable mistake by, say, a monolingual high school student, but appalling for a supposedly expert scholar reading a doctoral thesis in Spanish for details about grape species. If you don't know Spanish and Latin well, then surely you have to recognise the danger of misunderstanding something like this and run your conclusions by someone who can check them? This screw-up looks arrogant even more than it looks ignorant.