I understand that the article was written by DCP, but since DCP was utilizing Sorenson's translation and explanation of Schmidt's findings, if there is a conflict between Schmidt and the article, the source of the conflict will be Sorenson, not Peterson. That is why I keep referring to it as "Sorenson's summary".
You are ignoring the findings of later scientists, who had access to a more structured approach and advanced methodology, when you keep insisting Hatt and Mercer are still open questions. The sources I've cited have already demonstrated that later scientists corrected the tentative conclusions of Hatt and Mercer. This is the same pattern of Book of Mormon apologetics I've referred to earlier - the tendency to rely on dated sources, even when those dated sources have been later corrected. At some point it should raise suspicion that the only evidence Book of Mormon apologists can dig up to support their controversial claims are dated and suspect, and disregarded by later scientists.
Let me remind you that Mercer was later discredited with this:
Henry C. Mercer (1896), who explored the cave and dug 2 pits in Chamber 3 in 1895, found similar ceramic and nonceramic layers. His attempt to locate preceramic artifacts with extinct fauna in association with Loltun or other nearby caves was unsuccessful. Some skeletal remains dubiously identified as Ursus (bear) were found in Loltun in a ceramic layer. Mercer reported the presence of Equus (horse) teeth and bones on the surface of three different caves. Although similar to the extinct horse Equus Occidentalis, the remains were identified as modern horse. Cope (1896) studied the remains of other animals collected by Mercer in Loltun, including species of opossums, bats, rabbit, mice, peccary, and deer if two sizes (page 263)
The Mercer bones are "case closed" as far as providing evidence that the equus conversidens survived into Book of Mormon times. That's why you suddenly switched tactics and were speculating that the "modern" horse bones were really the bones of horses descended from the European horse that the Israelites brought over. Remember that? I think this is a ridiculous theory for the reasons I cited above. To me, it is the equivalent of insisting that Noah really did build a big ole' boat and put two of every animal on the face of the earth in it. How? Why God did it! That type of conversation is utterly pointless. Like I said, I won't continue this conversation if your methodology will be to invoke God in terms of intervening in a way that superposes the way we know the world works. It would be necessary to invoke this magic god wand in terms of the Israelites transporting horses across the ocean. So I simply will not debate that with you - I suppose you'd have to find Biblical inerrantists to argue in that manner.
If you're willing to invoke the magical god card to this extent, why even play footsies with the scientific community like you are here? Why don't you just declare that God erased the evidence that could support the Book of Mormon in order to try our faith? Save yourself some time and effort, the end result is the same.
Now in regards to Hatt:
The most extensive study of the region was undertaken by Mr. and Mrs. Robert T. Hatt, who in 1929 and 1947 explored fourteen “cenotes” and dug in nine of them. (Hatt et al 1953). Two cenotes near Loltun contained the remains of extinct animals. Pleistocence Equus conversidens was recovered from Actun Lara. Actun Spukil produced a left tympanic ring and a molar fragment from the ground sloth, Paramylodon. In all, Hatt et al. (1953) collected forty-five species of mammals, of which six had been introduced by the Spaniards.
The Hatts collected only on the surface and in the top 10 cm of sediments in Chamber 3 in Loltun Cave (Hatt et al. 1953). Although further excavations were not pursued, the Hatts did recover twenty four mammal species, five of which were introduced (Mus Musculus, Canis familiaris, Equus axinus, Capra Hircus, and Bos Taurus). Native species represented two marsupials, one insectivore, four bats, one lagomorph, nine rodents, one carnivore, and one artiodactyls (Table 10.1). Hatt et al. (1953) indicated in their final report that the Loltun Cave was the most promising archaeological site for obtaining clues to the cultural and faunal changes since the end of the Pleistocene. (page 263)
This clearly defines the horse remains that Hatt discovered as being Pleistocene.
And don't forget the additional reference I found that clarified the Loltun cave findings:
Currently, only one site in Mesoamerica supports the hypothesis of human occupation in lowland environments before 12,000 years ago. In the Puuc Hills of northern Yucatan, the lowest levels of excavations reported by R. Velazquez at Loltun Cave have produced some crude stone and bone tools along with the remains of horse, mastodon, and other now extinct Pleistocene animals. Felines, deer, and numerous rodents round out the archaeological assemblage. No radiocarbon dates have been forthcoming for this proposed early components that underlies later ceramic occupations. On the basis of stone tool typology and faunal association, MacNeish has proposed that the lower levels of Loltun Cave are somewhere between 40,000 and 15,000 years old.
This source clearly states that the horse remains "underlies" later ceramic occupations, and were in the "lower levels".
How you can read these statements and still insist that Hatt and Mercer are open questions is beyond me.
The only question left is in regards to the Schmidt reference. And the only remaining question is NOT whether or not the findings in the Loltun cave could support the existence of the horse in the Book of Mormon times. Later scientists have already concluded that they do NOT. The only possibility, going by the statements of later scientists who clearly were referring to Hatt and Mercer as well as later excavations, is whether or not the horse remains on the bottom of Level VII were pleistocene or the beginning of holocene, and it appears that the consensus is Pleistocene. So the most this source can do is to support the idea that the horse went extinct a bit later than originally thought - although still thousands of years short of the Book of Mormon mark.
I already stated it is possible that Sorenson fairly translated Schmidt, and Schmidt really did think he found horse remains in higher levels. This still does not constitute evidence of the horse in Book of Mormon time periods due to the fact that later scientists have concluded that the horse remains were Pleistocene. We already have the explanation for the possible discrepancy - caves are difficult to excavate, and the strata is sometimes confusing.
And no, I didn't ignore the Bison. I specifically mentioned it and said this was probably what the earlier source thought were "cattle bones". A species of bison existed in Mesoamerica during the Pleistocene era:
Bison antiquus, known as either the ancient bison or antique bison, is believed to be the direct ancestor of the two subspecies of the modern American bison: the plains bison (B. bison bison) and the wood bison (B. bison athabascae). Ancient bison probably evolved from steppe bison (Bison priscus) that became isolated from Beringia (Alaska, Yukon and eastern Siberia) with the onset of the Wisconsinian glaciation (about 71,000 years ago). Its range during the late Pleistocene extended from southern Canada into Mexico and from coast to coast. Ancient bison fossils are common at many sites and mass graves resulting from paleoindian hunts have been found at some western localities. Some of these mass graves contain the remains of up to 200 individuals.
http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/Old Testament ... /bison.php
Zak, I've spent quite a bit of time on this with you largely due to the fact that I had two unexpected days off due to snow. There is a limit to how much more time I will spend on this, considering how little progress we seem to be making. You are willing to ignore the statements of later scientists who had access to more structured methodology and resources in order to continue asserting that Hatt and Mercer might possibly be evidence of the horse in the Book of Mormon time period, OR you are simply invoking the magical "god done it" card, which is not a debate I will enter, period. Maybe God waved some magic wand and enabled the Jaredites to put a bunch of horses (and it would have to be a bunch, not one or two, to survive and continue the species) on those dish like barges that had plugs in the bottom and could flip around in the ocean, but since the god magic wand is totally outside logic and science, it's not something I will debate, other than to point out to just what extent God's magic wand had to reach.
The only open question, to me, is what Schmidt actually said. Did he actually say that horse remains were mixed in with levels higher than VII? If so, the later scientists seem content to attribute this to the difficulties of cave excavations and the particular challenges of strata identification in caves. If not, then why did Sorenson attribute this to him? As long as the consensus of scientists regarding the horse remains in the Loltun caves is that they were Pleistocene - and I've shown that this is exactly the consensus - then there is no open question in regards to whether the Loltun caves provide evidence supporting the existence of the horse during Book of Mormon time periods. They do not.
The only way you could logically utilize this episode is to demonstrate that archeaology, like other sciences, often has a bumpy road, and researchers sometimes make mistakes. Well, d'uh. I think everyone already realizes that. But to then try to exploit this reality into "and so we can logically conclude horses really DID exist during Book of Mormon time period despite what scientists say" is an unjustified leap, given the vast consensus among scientists on this subject. (to say nothing of the plain history of the New World - where, in real life, the native americans knew NOTHING about horses, and even thought they were a hybrid creature with the rider perceived as part of the beast)
