A Very Limited Geography

[_Fifth Columnist]

While there might still be a group of blindly stubborn Beringia-only scholars out there, the prevailing trend is towards the recognition that ancient migrations to the Americas occurred as well via both the North Atlantic and the South Pacific. Evidence from multiple disciplines has made this pretty much a foregone conclusion among the new generation of anthropologists and archaeologists. I'm surprised that Feder would make a statement like the one you attribute to him. I find it hard to believe he is not aware of the growing body of evidence that demonstrates multiple ancient migration paths to the Americas.

ETA: Here is one recent examination of evidence contradicting the "Beringia Only" theory of Amerindian origins: The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans

Where in that book does it support two migrations of people from the middle east to the Americas? If your only point is that there may be some evidence for transoceanic crossings at times that don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and by people who don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative (polynesians, Japanese, etc.), then it does absolutely nothing to help your case.

[_Nomad]

They can't even read any of the glyphs from the place.

That's news to me, since I just read Richard Hansen's discussion of early Maya text from El Mirador. He notes that the iconography and text are slightly different from later Mayan but similar to other glyphs at places such as Kaminaljuyu and Uaxcactun, and he provides a reading of the text. The syntax and phonetic representations are unsure, but not the meaning.

You don't know what you're talking about.

El Mirador, the Lost City of the Maya, from the May 2011 issue of Smithsonian Magazine.

Here is a cite from the article:

Hansen has excavated, mapped and explored 51 ancient cities in the Mirador basin. “What you had here was the first state-level society in the Western Hemisphere, a thousand years before anyone suspected,” he said. It was not just the monumental architecture of La Danta and structures at sister cities like Nakbe and Tintal that were sophisticated. The achievements of the Preclassic Maya were reflected in the way they made the leap from clans and chiefdoms to complex societies with class hierarchies and a cohesive ideology; in the technical sophistication that enabled them to quarry huge limestone blocks without metal tools and move them to building sites without the wheel; how they collected rainwater off building roofs and stored it in reservoirs and cisterns; how they projected time in their calendars and preserved the records of their civilization in their still-enigmatic histories on stelae in images and glyphs that scholars have yet to decipher (unlike glyphs from the Classic period that have been decoded) ..."

[_Nomad]

While there might still be a group of blindly stubborn Beringia-only scholars out there, the prevailing trend is towards the recognition that ancient migrations to the Americas occurred as well via both the North Atlantic and the South Pacific. Evidence from multiple disciplines has made this pretty much a foregone conclusion among the new generation of anthropologists and archaeologists. I'm surprised that Feder would make a statement like the one you attribute to him. I find it hard to believe he is not aware of the growing body of evidence that demonstrates multiple ancient migration paths to the Americas.

ETA: Here is one recent examination of evidence contradicting the "Beringia Only" theory of Amerindian origins: The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans

Where in that book does it support two migrations of people from the middle east to the Americas? If your only point is that there may be some evidence for transoceanic crossings at times that don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative and by people who don't fit the Book of Mormon narrative (polynesians, Japanese, etc.), then it does absolutely nothing to help your case.

Obviously, my point was that the Beringia-only theory is dead.

As far as indisputable evidence of Nephites is concerned, I am confident it will come someday. But by then it will be too late for you.

[_Runtu]

You don't know what you're talking about.

That is usually the case, though I'm happy to be educated by people like you who do.

El Mirador, the Lost City of the Maya, from the May 2011 issue of Smithsonian Magazine.

Here is a cite from the article:

Hansen has excavated, mapped and explored 51 ancient cities in the Mirador basin. “What you had here was the first state-level society in the Western Hemisphere, a thousand years before anyone suspected,” he said. It was not just the monumental architecture of La Danta and structures at sister cities like Nakbe and Tintal that were sophisticated. The achievements of the Preclassic Maya were reflected in the way they made the leap from clans and chiefdoms to complex societies with class hierarchies and a cohesive ideology; in the technical sophistication that enabled them to quarry huge limestone blocks without metal tools and move them to building sites without the wheel; how they collected rainwater off building roofs and stored it in reservoirs and cisterns; how they projected time in their calendars and preserved the records of their civilization in their still-enigmatic histories on stelae in images and glyphs that scholars have yet to decipher (unlike glyphs from the Classic period that have been decoded) ..."

No doubt some of the glyphs have yet to be deciphered, but that's different from saying we don't know what any of them mean. As I said, I just read Richard Hansen's article on one of the stelae from El Mirador. I'm no expert, but I figure if he can give a reading of the glyphs, it's a good bet that at least some of them have been deciphered.

[_schreech]

An appeal to authority is a crappy way to make an argument. Produce the evidence. Pointing at your favorite PhD and saying, "hey, this guy believes it," is no substitute.

E V I D E N C E

What you are dealing with here is "subjective evidence" (my new favorite oxymoron)...Apparently, "subjective evidence" outweighs lack of evidence (at least that is what I read on the MAD board) so, as long as someone believes its true (or has drawn numerous false parallels that no non-LDS scholar seems to be able to draw), that outweighs any lack of evidence on the subject...

[_Kishkumen]

What would be the point of once again linking to articles by these LDS scholars of ancient Mesoamerica? It's been done a gozillion times through the years. All you folks do is dismiss what they write as "lying for the Lord" and then you start crying out for "EVIDENCE!" again.

Listen, everyone pretty much agrees that minus a testimony there is no reason to suppose these civilizations even existed in ancient America. The fact that some people have adopted a methodology--and they explicitly admit that this is the case--in which their testimony is accepted as the basis for proceeding with a historical argument does nothing toward making a historical case that would be accepted by anyone outside of the world of Book of Mormon believers.

This is not controversial. It's just a fact.

I see lots of good scientific reasons to suppose ancient Nephites existed.

Only because you believed in their existence and have chosen to accept historical arguments based on a premise that relies on prior religious conviction.

What point would there be in pointing again to the fraction of that 1% that provides a plausible reason to believe there really were Nephites?

I don't see that there is any. You guys see what you want to see because of your religious convictions. No one who doesn't share those convictions would be moved by any of these arguments. There just isn't anything to it.

Listen, I don't begrudge you your belief and interest in all of this. What I find more amazing is that anyone spends much time trying to debunk what no one has a very strong objective basis to believe in the first place. This really isn't like Holocaust denial so much as hunting fairies.

[_Kishkumen]

No doubt some of the glyphs have yet to be deciphered, but that's different from saying we don't know what any of them mean. As I said, I just read Richard Hansen's article on one of the stelae from El Mirador. I'm no expert, but I figure if he can give a reading of the glyphs, it's a good bet that at least some of them have been deciphered.

There are still folks who talk about the mysterious Etruscans with their unknown language, although people have a fairly strong understanding of that language based on the little we possess of it. A limited knowledge is quite different from abject ignorance, but people like to exaggerate the former into the latter. It is sexier.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

ETA: Oh, but you do have the great Mesoamerican scholar "beastie" on your side, so I guess that's something! lol

It's a interesting pot shot taken at Beastie. It's true she's no Michael Coe(who also thinks the Book of Mormon is BS) but I've routinely watched her arguments best those of the LDS LGT group posting on these forums. And If I recall correctly she did a pretty good job showing how Sorenson uses flawed and inaccurate citations to back up his claims of metallurgy in mesoamerica.

Phaedrus

[_sock puppet]

An appeal to authority is a crappy way to make an argument. Produce the evidence. Pointing at your favorite PhD and saying, "hey, this guy believes it," is no substitute.

E V I D E N C E

But an appeal to authority is the entire premise of that mopologetic venture known as MST.

[_Kishkumen]

As far as indisputable evidence of Nephites is concerned, I am confident it will come someday. But by then it will be too late for you.

Maybe that will be at about the same time as the mastery of leprechaun tracking to recover their hidden pots of gold.