Morley wrote:Tobin. Where did you get the idea that "Mesoamerican studies and archaeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archaeology such as Egyptology"? Why do you think this?
Let's consider one metric. How many departments of Egyptology exist vs how many departments of Mesoamerican studies exist? Egyptology: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/education/egyptology_universities.htm vs Mesoamerican studies: One in Mexico - Department of Anthropology, Art History, Mesoamerican Studies (http://www.unam.mx/) - most other universities put it inside the Department of Anthropology or Art History.
It would be interesting to see how much the country of Egypt spends on the Cairo Museum and Egyptology annually, But I don't think it is outlandish to assert that worldwide considerably more resources, people with degrees, and money is dedicated by major universities, countries, and major museums to Egyptology than Mesoamerica.
Can you provide any metric that demonstrates otherwise?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Morley wrote:Tobin. Where did you get the idea that "Mesoamerican studies and archaeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archaeology such as Egyptology"? Why do you think this?
Let's consider one metric. How many departments of Egyptology exist vs how many departments of Mesoamerican studies exist? Egyptology: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/education/egyptology_universities.htm vs Mesoamerican studies: One in Mexico - Department of Anthropology, Art History, Mesoamerican Studies (http://www.unam.mx/) - most other universities put it inside the Department of Anthropology or Art History.
It would be interesting to see how much the country of Egypt spends on the Cairo Museum and Egyptology annually, But I don't think it is outlandish to assert that worldwide considerably more resources, people with degrees, and money is dedicated by major universities, countries, and major museums to Egyptology than Mesoamerica.
Can you provide any metric that demonstrates otherwise?
Your single metric is flawed in several ways. Most of the programs in your single list are not in "departments of Egyptology." They merely offer "undergraduate and graduate degrees in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies." Here's a similar list for universities offering graduate programs in Mesoamaerican Studies: http://www.famsi.org/research/graduate.htm.
You still haven't answered as to why you think that "Mesoamerican studies and archaeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archaeology such as Egyptology."
Tobin: While Mesoamerican Studies seems to be concentrated in the Americas, it seems to be very available there. For example, there are seven universities in Canada where one can get a PhD in Mesoamerican Studies, while there appear to be two where one can study Egyptology.
Morley wrote:Your single metric is flawed in several ways. Most of the programs in your single list are not in "departments of Egyptology." They merely offer "undergraduate and graduate degrees in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies." Here's a similar list for universities offering graduate programs in Mesoamaerican Studies: http://www.famsi.org/research/graduate.htm.
Your citation actually confirms exactly what I stated. One department of Mesoamerican studies in existence worldwide. That is simply not true worldwide for Egyptology nor can the case be made that Egyptology is treated academically the same as Mesoamerican studies. I also very much doubt there are a comparable number of advanced degrees attained in Mesoamerican studies as a result.
Morley wrote:You still haven't answered as to why you think that "Mesoamerican studies and archaeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archaeology such as Egyptology."
I quite clearly stated my reason. Egyptology has received far more resources and adademic interest. I'll also point out that researchers have been able to read Egyptian Heiroglphics for over a century too and have many more examples of it. That is not true of Mesoamerican studies. It has not received the resources, academic attention, nor has the ability existed till very recently to understand Mayan in any significant way that Egyptology has.
I would like you to demonstrate any metrics or facts that indicate otherwise.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
So, in other words, you have nothing to show but a scattered understanding of some depictions on the ruins and stela, which I already knew about.
Predictable. When given information that demonstrates that the Book of Mormon placement in Mesoamerica is problematic for the reasons outlined, you revert to "the experts don't really know anything, anyway, they're just making stuff up."
I've seen it played out many times on MAD.
Yet, if those some "know nothings" experts ever found a SHRED of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, you all would be all over it like white on rice, trumpeting their expertise.
Again, I'm assuming this nonanswer means you haven't done any serious study of Mesoamerican history, and are simply parroting what you've seen some defenders of the faith say. by the way, you won't hear someone like Brant Gardner argue that they don't really know anything about Mesoamerica.
More nincompoops, I suppose, who make stuff up. Odd that you're not willing to accept what those nincompoops have to say about Mesoamerica, despite their many years of study, research, and ability to decode Mayan glyphs, yet you believe the nincompoop who claimed an angel led him to the Book of Mormon and he translated it by the power of God, despite his propensity to also make stuff up.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Here's what the Book of Mormon "know nothings" tend to ignore. (by "know nothings" I mean that their arguments devolve into claiming that the experts in Mesoamerica really know next to nothing due to inadequate writing evidence)
Archaeologists reconstruct information about ancient civilizations in numerous ways. Only one is via the actual writings, which provide useful information but also have to be regarded with skepticism due to bias, exaggeration, and propaganda. The other is the "ground", and that information is not tainted.
So, for example, if a future archaeologist in 3012 were to study New York City, which was abandoned in 2012, as well as study a nearby small town, they would be able to garner quite a bit of information about those two polities, even absent writings. Even if many of the buildings were built of wood and had completely deteriorated, they can do soil analysis to see which parts of the ground once had a wooden structure on it, and how large that structure was, and how near to other structures it was. They can tell how many of those structures were in a given area. And, of course, some artifacts and ruins do not deteriorate, but are available for study. Those give even more information about the civilization.
Using our example, it's not going to be difficult for 3012 archaeologists to determine that New York City and the neighboring "po-dunk, rural NY"communities were quite different in size and population density. But they're also going to see the influence of NYC on po-dunk.
Those same archaeologists would easily be able to tell the difference between NYC, abandoned in 2012, versus NYC, abandoned in 1812.
And then if you do discover some writings and artwork that add details, it's icing on the cake.
HUNDREDS of stelae have been found in Mesoamerica. And, of course, we do have the codices, as well as the continued history and evolution of the area.
But, according to the "Know nothings" we know so little about Mesoamerica that it's completely justified to propose an immense Judeo-Christian civilization once ruled there.
There's a reason Brant Gardner deals with this challenge by trying to change how one interprets the Book of Mormon rather than to continue looking for evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. He wants to re-interpret the Book of Mormon in such a way that it describes a very minor polity in a very small region of Mesoamerica. The problem is that the text contradicts that description. Basically, as I've said before, you have to try to re-interpret the Book of Mormon so it's, more or less, a fantastic tale told by, say, a neighborhood gang in ancient Mesoamerica.
And that, by the way, is why Kish suggested that apologists just go ahead and embrace the New England setting of the Book of Mormon. You're already having to make these strained arguments that basically depend on re-interpreting the Book of Mormon and emphasizing its unreliability and Joseph Smith's insertion of himself into the text. So why not just run with it and go with New England, which allows you to NOT portray Joseph Smith as a nincompoop who just made stuff up?
After all, it takes quite a bit of imagination and determination to view Joseph Smith as such a fabricating nincompoop, but still insist he told the truth over-all about the Book of Mormon and the founding of the church. Not everyone is up to that challenge.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I want you to put your money where your mouth is. I'd like you to list the books you've read about Mesoamerica, written by the experts in the field. I'm not talking about Book of Mormon apologia, but just the books you've read from which you gathered information about the claims being made about ancient Mesoamerica.
Next I want you to take three examples from those books that you believe best illustrates why these experts are over-stating the knowledge we actually have about ancient Mesoamerica. Provide the claims they've made, which are, basically, made-up, and then provide the information that demonstrates why these claims are best viewed as unreliable, due to the lack of adequate writing evidence.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Tobin wrote:However, stating that the field of Mesoamerican studies and archeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archeology such as Egyptology is not outlandish. Stating that there are large gaps in our knowledge about these societies and their history due to the lack or non-existence in many cases of authors and witnesses to the events is not bizarre. Stating that I believe ultimately the Book of Mormon will shown to be correct (on a Mormon discussion forum) shouldn't be surprising.
Now, you may not believe it Quasi, but I am interested in the truth. But don't expect me to just accept notions competely unfiltered and unquestioned. What I see here is an area in a scientific field and study that in many ways is still in its infancy and not nearly as developed and definitive as the critics would like to pretend. I believe there are a lot more things to be discovered in it and these discoveries may yet dramatically change the prevailing view of these people.
It is generally agreed that over 90% of the Maya texts can now be read. The progress rapidly accelerated in the 1980s. Comparing to ancient Egyptian studies does not seem to be a valid point to argue.
I am curious Tobin, do you have an interest in everything Mayan including all of the writings that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon? I ask because of your comment about large gaps in knowledge and your belief in things yet to be discovered. Do you cherish the 90% that is now known and readable or does it fall away in hopes of what you want to be found?
Would you still be interested if scientists found that the Olmec and Mayan structures had their beginnings in Louisiana 5,000 years ago? That is before the Jaradites.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1620.summary "High pyramids and great plazas are the hallmarks of ancient Mesoamerica, from the 3000-year-old Olmec cities along the Gulf of Mexico to the inland metropolis of Tenochtitlan encountered by the Spanish conquistadors. Yet the oldest examples that call to mind this familiar style are found nearly 1000 kilometers to the north in the muddy bayous of Louisiana. Five millennia ago, Native Americans here began to build high mounds of earth flanked by flat plazas that resemble Mesoamerica's classic architecture. A small band of archaeologists suspect that these ancient settlements laid the foundation not only for the North American mound-building tradition that eventually culminated in the great city of Cahokia (see main text) but perhaps also for Mesoamerican civilization."
Tobin wrote:That is simply not true worldwide for Egyptology nor can the case be made that Egyptology is treated academically the same as Mesoamerican studies. I also very much doubt there are a comparable number of advanced degrees attained in Mesoamerican studies as a result.
Tobin wrote:I quite clearly stated my reason. Egyptology has received far more resources and adademic interest. I'll also point out that researchers have been able to read Egyptian Heiroglphics for over a century too and have many more examples of it. That is not true of Mesoamerican studies. It has not received the resources, academic attention, nor has the ability existed till very recently to understand Mayan in any significant way that Egyptology has.
I would like you to demonstrate any metrics or facts that indicate otherwise.
Tobin, you're making assertions but are not showing your work.
Seventeen universities in the USA offer some kind of undergraduate or graduate opportunity to study Egyptology. More than fifty US institutions offer PhDs in the field of Mesoamerican Studies.
Let me restate that. Egyptology = 17. Mesoamerica = 50.
I'll ask again for you to provide a reason that you think that "Mesoamerican studies and archaeology is not nearly as well developed and understood as other areas in archaeology such as Egyptology."