Jump to content

Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Onondaga (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 29 October 2010 (→Descartes favors Mesoamerican Setting no one setting over another). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Cement

The recently added section on “cement” was in need of some improvements. (1) The heading size mismatched the other sections. (2) The quote from Helaman 3:7 contained a misprint (“aexpert” instead of “expert”). (3) The link to the Mormon Meridian Magazine article at the end of the sentence claiming “…evidence of cement being used in the ancient Americas…” focuses exclusively on Central America. I have improved the wording of this section and added a reference which argues that “cement” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, fits the “Mound-Builder” setting. Onondaga (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image from the article on wattle and daub structures. Onondaga (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to a thought provoking little article titled “How to Make Nephite Cement”. Onondaga (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLDS and the Limited Mesoamerican Model

The opening sentence of the Limited Geography Model section seemed somewhat to suggest to readers that LDS were the first to propose a limited Central American setting. The sentence only referenced Sorenson. I have added the reference to RLDS Hills, 1917 publication. Long before any LDS are known to have dared place Cumorah in Mexico or Central America, Hills, who was not doctrinally bound to LDS D&C 128 (including verse 20), proposed a limited Mesoamerican geography. Onondaga (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants

It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to say that the paleontological record indicates that elephants and similar creatures became extinct after a certain date. The only thing that we can say is that there is no confirmed evidence of their existence after an approximate date. In fact, the writer Louis L'Amour, who seemed to have been no particular friend to the Latter-day Saints, included a mammoth as an antagonist in one of his Sackett novels based on Native American legends from the eastern states. We need to watch out for the logical fallacy of thinking that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.193.49 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely. While you may be correct technically that "no confirmed evidence" has been found, the VAST majority of archaeologists and paleontologists agree to this point. The scientific community has spoken on this point. And that is because there is a wealth of data showing these extinctions did in fact happen. As a side note, you could say that "no confirmed evidence exists that aliens deposited mammoths on the North American continent." ...or you could just say it didn't happen. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep

Once again we find unscientific dogma in the caption of the llama photograph. It is inaccurate and incorrect to say that llamas were the only animals to have been domesticated anciently in the Americas. Yet rather than admit that llamas are the only animals that we KNOW were domesticated anciently, somebody seemed to prefer to promote his own agenda rather than remain as balanced as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.193.49 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no evidence of any other creature, bowing down to Mormon fundamentalism would be an unbalanced insertion of unscientific dogma into the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree whole heartedly with Ian.thomson - there is a lot of evidence that has been reviewed by archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists regarding domestication of animals on the American continent. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horse, donkey, pig

Archeologists in Carlsbad found horses and a donkey 2005: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_3510b187-f256-5b91-875e-b45c8865f14a.html

Pre-columbian tribal art, pigs: http://www.nassertribalart.com/P/C/PC http://www.howardnowes.com/gallery/detail.cfm?itemnum=9002 90.231.11.211 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mojado postulated that the horses may have been Spanish in origin, perhaps from an ill-fated exploration that never returned and so was lost to history. Perhaps the lost Spanish explorers offered the horses and donkey to the American Indians as a gift, Mojado said."
The other two sites are selling the items as kitsch, not exactly reliable, scholarly, sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources and Pseudoarchaeology

Pursuant to the comments above, we have to be remember to be very specific about places and dates in this article - this comment by anon is a perfect example. Apologists will say that horses did exist in the Americas. And they are right - but they conveniently omit WHEN. Nearly everything on the anachronism list existed at one time or another in the Americas - but the reason they are on the list is because archaeological and historical evidence shows that they could not have existed in during the time frame of the Book of Mormon. Also remember, that archaeology is a confusing topic for most people, and there are a lot of people out there that perpetrate outright fraud, or make fantastic claims about things that are not true and not accepted by the archaeological community at large. I - and many other editors - will likely remove your information if you add something that fits these criteria. Descartes1979 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coon

I am formally objecting to the sourced website by Vincent Coon which clearly fails WP:RS for the following reasons:

  1. He is not an archaeologist. The extent of his training is a Masters degree in Physics.
  2. His theories are at odds with so-called "mainstream Mormon apologetic" thought - much less with mainstream archaeology
  3. He cites at length other sources that I perceive to be Pseudoarchaeology.
  4. His book appears to be self-published
  5. His "research" is not published in independent journals and is not peer reviewed
  6. His website appears to be pretty shameless self promotion

Based on these reasons, I have stripped all Coon references from the article, and replaced them with fact and cn tags where appropriate - and where Coon's conjecture was blatant and explicit, I have removed the content entirely. Descartes1979 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Michael Trento

I am formally objecting to the information by author Salvatore Michael Trento. His books appear to fail WP:RS for the following reasons:

  1. I cannot verify that he is actually an archaeologist - despite claims by some editors of this page. I don't think he is.
  2. His theories are not published in independent journals and are not peer reviewed
  3. His theories fall in line with the pervasive pseudoarchaeology around the theories of ancient Israeli immigration to the New World - which have all been proven false by mainstream archaeology
  4. I can't find anything about the Middletown Archaeological Research Center - and I suspect it is run out of his basement as a method to promote his book
  5. He has appeared on shows and websites related to pseudoscience such as UFO chasers, and magnet therapy. His archaeological book appears to feed into the "mysterious" and "magnetic" properties of some of the archaeological sites that he talks about. This is clearly not archaeology, and appears to be a guy trying to make a buck on the hype and mystery of these sites.

Based on these reasons I have stripped the article of these references. Descartes1979 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hagoth vs. Jared Diamond

Something to think about - I recently read Guns, Germs, and Steel and was struck by the evidence regarding the population of the Pacific islands and how it has been soundly established through archaeological evidence as being island by island starting from South East Asia. This is in stark contrast with the BOM narrative and LDS tradition that holds that Hagoth was the source of that diaspora. I think we should have a section in this article addressing this issue. I will start that sometime in the coming week if no one else gets to it. Descartes1979 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I am a little out of my depth regarding licensing and fair use when it comes to images. I just uploaded the Samuel the Lamanite image that is at the top of the article, and could use some help in determining if my fair use rational for inclusion is sufficient. As a side note, some of Friberg's other paintings are on the wikipedia with similar rational as mine. Descartes1979 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes seems to favor a Mesoamerican setting

I strongly disagree with Descartes edits. In the past he has repeatedly been informed that the Mormon “mainstream setting” for the Book of Mormon does not agree with mainstream academia. The fact that there are LDS archaeologists who accept and promote this fringe view does not lend any authority to their opinions in the eyes of accepted archaeology, American history or literature. Descarte wishes to marginalize for some strange reason, the works of LDS who accept the mainstream literary setting for the Book of Mormon and challenge the so called “mainstream” view among LDS. I am undoing all his hatchet work. Kovesh (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of responses: 1) Why did you revert all of my formatting changes, typos, grammar improvements, image additions, etc.? Were those objectionable too? I marked minor changes that were uncontroversial. Please don't revert days of work at one swipe, you are going to throw us into an edit war. 2) I fully explained my objections above regarding Coon and Trento. If we can determine that those two sources meet WP:RS, then I agree that they should be included - but I am very skeptical. I am not marginalizing for some "strange" reason - I am trying to make this a sound article based on solid research by legitimate archaeologists. Please address my objections in the sections above and lets come to a consensus. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you revered the changes of 4 other editors (2 anons, User:Ian.thomson, and User:John of Reading) in your mass revert. Please, lets discuss these and be more precise, rather than a mass revert.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note to Kovesh - just rereading what you wrote, and I am a little confused. Did you read my edits? My sole, and very precise reason for removing content was this: Coon and Trento do not meet WP:RS. I am not marginalizing one Book of Mormon setting over the other. If, by the way, you want to know my personal view then I fully admit to my biases. I think all Book of Mormon settings are false. But that is not the point. The point is, we include relevant information from sources that are reliable. My POV and your POV don't matter, and neither does the opinion of a guy with no training in archaeology with a hackneyed website, and self-published joke of a book. Show me a reliable peer reviewed paper in an academic journal that advocates any Book of Mormon setting, and I will be the first to include it in this article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be reverted to what it was before Descartes, nested his major and minor edits. We should invite others to chime in and review Descartes’ previous contributions and line of reasoning.
Once again Descartes let’s take things one at a time. You should know by now that I for one am not unreasonable. In the mean time I’m reversing the article so we can discuss each argument and proposed contribution. By the way how many LDS, who are not archaeologists, have you referenced in this article? If readers will search far enough back they can read all about your curious positions and contributions. Some of them are rather entertaining. So you believe that having a degree in archaeology makes one’s position on the B of M “mainstream”? Have you actually read Trento? I suggest you visit a library! The thing that makes archaeologist Trento’s views mainstream regarding the setting for the Book of Mormon, is that he agrees with mainstream American literature specialists on the 19th century Mound-Builder genre. Descartes I truly believe that it is the approach you take towards editing this article that makes wars! Onondaga (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Descartes that neither Coon nor Trento have been shown to meet WP:RS. But there are fundamental problems with a strict application of WP:RS to articles critical of religious topics, especially where the topic is an attempted correlation between religious dogma and scientific fact. Mainstream scientists don't get tenure and promotions by writing books critical of fringe religious ideas that are scientifically or historically untenable. However, websites must be carefully weighed. Before Coon and Trento are added, there must be a careful discussion here and a consensus reached on their value and reliability. --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Taivo - the interesting thing about this topic, is that there is actually a wealth of information from Mormon archaeologists and scholars - so there is no need to rely on the theories of people trying to make a buck on their books.--Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Onondaga - this is an article about archaeology - not literature. The article already makes one interesting reference to the parallels with the fiction of the time right there in the first couple of sections of the article. Beyond that, the scope of this article should be focused on the archaeology. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate archaeological setting for the B of M is the same as the accepted literary setting. Accepted, that is by mainstream American history, literature and archaeology specialists. The Mesoamerican setting is not authentic. It is a later development that is not recognized by mainstream academia. Those who endorse this setting have chosen to take a fringe position departing from majority secular views. It does not matter how many LDS with degrees support this theory. Their degrees in whatever discipline, do not lend authority to their fringe views. Archaeologists who accept the mainstream setting for the B of M recognize that archaeology supports the literary setting for the B of M without proving the work to be historical or divine. In short, the legitimate archaeological setting for the work is supported by archaeology only to the extent that the work is recognized by mainstream American history and literature experts as a work about the Mound-Builder of North America. All who promote a different setting using alleged artifacts from that setting are fringe. Now why in the world would you have a problem with this position, unless you are really trying to promote a Mesoamerican model to the exclusion of the mainstream view? I admit that the Mesoamerican setting is tied to much LDS book sales and tours! This does not make it good scholarship regardless of the credential of those involved. The article has perhaps been too deferential to fringe views promoted in the LDS community. I am reversing your mass of edits and proposing that we begin by discussing the statements of non LDS archaeologist Salvatore Michael Trento. What is it exactly you have against his statements relative to archaeology and the Book of Mormon? Onondaga (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point Onondaga. I am not advocating any view - you just think I am because I removed information from one side of the argument. I am just trying to clean up crappy references and make sure this article is grounded in current archaeological thought and research. If there is such a wealth of consensus among non-LDS archaeologists about the BOM, then please, provide a good reference. Like I said before, I will be the first to include something in the article if it meets WP:RS. Also - you are reverting all of my minor edits, including the edits of four other editors in your zeal to revert to what you think this article should be. That strikes me as stubborn edit warring without regard to the betterment of the article. We are getting close to WP:3RR and I will request this article be protected if we continue down this road.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - why haven't you guys taken a look and responded to my issues with Coon and Trento several sections above? That is the issue here - if we want to come to a consensus, I need to know what you think about my objection to those sources. At least one other editor has agreed with my objections. You are only doing mass reverts and not contributing to the discussion of the issue at hand. Please comment on those sections above on Coon and Trento specifically.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy, Silverberg and Trento have been cited. They are more authoritative on the subject of the authentic archaeological / literary setting than Sorenson or any promoting a Mesoamerican setting. You have eliminated Trento and other reference without any real justification. If you do not know or recognize this there is a real problem with you editing this article. The minor edits are entangled with your prejudiced edits. The article should be reverted so that we can proceed as we have before, one edit at a time discussing what you are editing. If what you want to edit is reasonable or defensible you will have no problem with me. My experience with you is that many of your argument fall apart or show a lack of research once we start dealing with details. E.g. why don’t you accept that the Book of Mormon is classed in the 19th century Mound-Builder genre? Onondaga (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=393554032"