There is no indication that Joseph Smith did not mean horse when he used the word horse. If you know of some, then offer it. Coe is offering his opinion on Book of Mormon apologetics*, which isn't a "scientific matter". What is a scientific matter is that there were no horses during the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica.
So, Charity, no further explanation on why the description of Lib would sound like San Lorenzo to a scholar? And which scholars believe the Olmecs were destroyed at 601 BC?
And do you ever use anything other than apologia for your "research"?
*and, by the way, the fact that he knows this much about Book of Mormon apologetics demonstrates the falsity of the apologists who claim that while Coe knows what he's talking about in regards to ancient Mesoamerica, he is not familiar enough with current Book of Mormon apologetics for his comments to be meaningful
Now, let's look more at your Olmec timeline. From Charity's mormonwiki link:
* 2700 BC Jared and his friends and family travel to the Americas
* 2630 BC City of Moron is established
* 2430 BC Population of Moron is decimated because of wars, thirty survive
* 2290 BC Built Cities
* 2160 BC Drought cuts down the population
* 1070 BC Civil war divides the kingdom
* 1010 BC Wars, famine, pestilence
* 740 BC Civil War
* ~600 BC Final Battle, Ether & Coriantumr only survivors
Sorenson actually would probably agree with this rough chronology, because he wanted to retain the tower connection.
From p 116 of Ancient Setting:
First, let us spell out the origin of the Jaredites in historical and cultural terms. When did the Jaredites originate as a people? Historical texts and archaeological research on Mesopotamia, their homeland, tell us that big pyramid-shaped temple platforms called ziggurats were being erected well before 3000 BC. Nothing but one of them qualifies as “the great tower” referred to in Ether 1:33. If the departure of the Jaredite party from their original home had been many centuries later than 3000 BC or earlier than 3300 BC, their account about “the great tower” would sound odd in terms of Near Eastern history. (Incidentally, the zero date from which the Mesoamerican calendars were calculated was 3113 BC, which might or might not be a coincidence.) We have already seen that the earliest evidences of some of the basic indicators of civilization – stable agriculture, village life, and ceramics – date to Mesaomerica to about 3000 BC.
There is no sound evidence, by the way, to support the idea from outmoded biblical commentaries that the great tower (“of Babel”) dated to near 2200 BC, as some Latter-day Saints continue to believe. Indeed, contrary data abound.
Gardner is willing to throw the tower under the bus because of his familiarity with the Olmec time period.
http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli ... Ether1.htm The following summary is based on information obtained from Richard Diehl's "The Olmecs: America's First Civilization". Diehl is widely regarded as the preeminent Olmec authority.
Yes, there were evidence of inhabitants in Olman prior to the Olmec period from about 5100 BC. They were farmers and foragers. Signs of "civilization" began to be noted around 3000 BC. (the following is taken from one of my zarahemla essays, which I still believe Charity hasn't bothered to read, despite complaining that critics don't deal with content)
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index.php/Kingship/Holy_Lord#Evolution_of_Ideology:_The_.E2.80.9CJaredite.E2.80.9D_Period
It is true that there is evidence of “some of the basic indicators of civilization” as early as 3000 BC in the Olmec region. Richard Diehl, in his book The Olmecs - America’s First Civilization, notes:
Although humans surely inhabited Olman in Paleo-Indian times, the oldest known archaeological remains date to 5100 BC. At about that time farmers occupied the edge of a former lagoon at San Andres, Tabasco, 15 km (10 miles) south of the current shore of the Gulf of Mexico and 5 km (3 miles) northeast of La Venta…
By 2500 BC farmer at San Andres and their neighbors were living around an estuary bordered by channels of the Grijalva river delta and practicing a mixed economy of foraging and farming. In addition to domesticated maize, they cultivated the sunflower for its nutritious, oil-rich seeds, and cotton for fiber. They also utilized the abundant wild resources of the area such as plants of the squash family. Rust maintains that they used pottery vessels for cooking and storage but later investigators suggest that his sherds may be intrusions from more recent occupations higher up in the excavation. The early inhabitants of San Andres must have used canoes, weapons, digging sticks, net baskets, and ritual objects fabricated from wood and other organic materials. (pp 23-24)
This is obviously problematic for Sorenson’s early dating. Archaeologists can’t even guarantee that the Olmecs, or more precisely the pre-Olmecs, had pottery by 2500 BC, much less the advanced social stratification described in the Book of Mormon. Diehl dates the actual origins of the Olmec culture to around 1500 BC. Again, from his book The Olmecs, p. 25:
Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshipers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art. The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.
This demonstrates why the individual who wrote the wiki entry cited above is not familiar with the Olmec chronology. The Olmecs did not emerge as an "identifiable" entity, separate from the foragers and farmers who had long inhabited the area - until 1600 BC. San Lorenzo, the earliest Olmec city, was not a full blown city until 1200 BC.