Events in Ether - Revision history

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T20:22:33Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}		{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}


	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

GregSmith: bot - remove old references code

2024-04-13T02:58:28Z

bot - remove old references code

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 13 April 2024
Line 228:		Line 228:
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

	~~==References==~~
	~~{{Reflist}}~~

GregSmith: BOT: change ((Navigation BoM}} to {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}, replaced: {{Navigation Book of Mormon}} → {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}

2024-04-12T19:17:29Z

BOT: change ((Navigation BoM}} to {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}, replaced: {{Navigation Book of Mormon}} → {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}

Show changes

DavidSmith: DavidSmith moved page Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically? to Events in Ether: wiki update project

2023-11-29T22:33:24Z

DavidSmith moved page Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically? to Events in Ether: wiki update project

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:33, 29 November 2023
(No difference)

DavidSmith at 22:33, 29 November 2023

2023-11-29T22:33:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 29 November 2023
Line 4:		Line 4:
	{{Navigation Book of Mormon}}		{{Navigation Book of Mormon}}

	~~==Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically?==~~
			{{Header}}
	Many critics<ref>This article is written in response to a list of supposed problems created by reddit user u/curious_mormon. The list has been used by other critics in order to bring up problems in the narrative of the Jaredites</ref> have claimed that there are scientific problems with the stories recorded in Ether. This article examines each one of them and gives a logical way to reconcile them scientifically. Most of the supposed “problems” are only based off of hyperliteralistic readings of the scriptures and are thus easily addressed as we look at how the ancient writers intended to write the scriptures (2 Nephi 31:3; D&C 1:24) and use science as an additional backdrop to identify how that influences the stories we read (D&C 88: 77-79).		Many critics<ref>This article is written in response to a list of supposed problems created by reddit user u/curious_mormon. The list has been used by other critics in order to bring up problems in the narrative of the Jaredites</ref> have claimed that there are scientific problems with the stories recorded in Ether. This article examines each one of them and gives a logical way to reconcile them scientifically. Most of the supposed “problems” are only based off of hyperliteralistic readings of the scriptures and are thus easily addressed as we look at how the ancient writers intended to write the scriptures (2 Nephi 31:3; D&C 1:24) and use science as an additional backdrop to identify how that influences the stories we read (D&C 88: 77-79).
	====Tower of Babel (Ether 1:3-5, 33-37)====		====Tower of Babel (Ether 1:3-5, 33-37)====

DavidSmith: /* Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically? */

2023-11-29T22:32:54Z

Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 29 November 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	<onlyinclude>		<onlyinclude>
			{{Main Page}}
			{{Navigation Book of Mormon}}

	==Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically?==		==Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically?==
	Many critics<ref>This article is written in response to a list of supposed problems created by reddit user u/curious_mormon. The list has been used by other critics in order to bring up problems in the narrative of the Jaredites</ref> have claimed that there are scientific problems with the stories recorded in Ether. This article examines each one of them and gives a logical way to reconcile them scientifically. Most of the supposed “problems” are only based off of hyperliteralistic readings of the scriptures and are thus easily addressed as we look at how the ancient writers intended to write the scriptures (2 Nephi 31:3; D&C 1:24) and use science as an additional backdrop to identify how that influences the stories we read (D&C 88: 77-79).		Many critics<ref>This article is written in response to a list of supposed problems created by reddit user u/curious_mormon. The list has been used by other critics in order to bring up problems in the narrative of the Jaredites</ref> have claimed that there are scientific problems with the stories recorded in Ether. This article examines each one of them and gives a logical way to reconcile them scientifically. Most of the supposed “problems” are only based off of hyperliteralistic readings of the scriptures and are thus easily addressed as we look at how the ancient writers intended to write the scriptures (2 Nephi 31:3; D&C 1:24) and use science as an additional backdrop to identify how that influences the stories we read (D&C 88: 77-79).

SpencerMarsh: /* Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically? */

2022-04-29T20:19:40Z

Question: How can one properly view events in Ether scientifically?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 29 April 2022
Line 221:		Line 221:

	===Conclusion===		===Conclusion===
	In all, we should not forget that the accounts are ~~covering~~ hundreds of years of history and ~~aren’t necessarily meant for super accurate history~~. We also don’t know every detail of how the Lord provided for the Jaredites in their initial journey to the New World and their extended history leading up to the Nephite arrival.		In all, we should not forget that the accounts in Ether are briefly recounting ''hundreds'' of years of history and thus we shouldn’t expect detailed accuracy at all. We also don’t know every detail of how the Lord provided for the Jaredites in their initial journey to the New World and their extended history leading up to the Nephite arrival.
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

SpencerMarsh: /* Jerry Grover: A More Exact Jaredite Chronology */

2019-07-30T06:40:11Z

Jerry Grover: A More Exact Jaredite Chronology

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:40, 30 July 2019
Line 49:		Line 49:
	One permutation of these assumptions is that, often, the “kings” listed were in captivity, so it would not be necessary for their offspring to be of sufficient age to defend the throne. This would provide for a longer term for that particular king. That may be offset by the death of a king earlier than the estimate.With the parameters establishing that the Jaredites departed prior to 2500 BC, and the radiometric dating of the Heth and Shiblom volcanic events and other corollary evidence and events discussed elsewhere, it is possible to establish a reasonable Jaredite chronology. Given these parameters, table 3 identifies the Jaredite calendar timeline, showing the years passed to the end of a particular king’s reign.		One permutation of these assumptions is that, often, the “kings” listed were in captivity, so it would not be necessary for their offspring to be of sufficient age to defend the throne. This would provide for a longer term for that particular king. That may be offset by the death of a king earlier than the estimate.With the parameters establishing that the Jaredites departed prior to 2500 BC, and the radiometric dating of the Heth and Shiblom volcanic events and other corollary evidence and events discussed elsewhere, it is possible to establish a reasonable Jaredite chronology. Given these parameters, table 3 identifies the Jaredite calendar timeline, showing the years passed to the end of a particular king’s reign.
	<br>		<br>
	~~[[File:Screenshot_1.png]]~~

	~~[[File:Screenshot_2.png]]~~

	~~[[File:Screenshot_3.png]]~~

	Gardner (2015) has argued for a shorter timeframe for the Jaredites—a total of 900 years, with an average reign of 30 years—based on the length of reigns of some known Maya kings, with no gap years between Riplakish and Morionton. Sorenson has indicated a span of 2,000 to 2,300 years (Sorenson 2013). Sorenson did not provide the methodology behind his most recent estimation, so comparisons of his method in that work is not possible. In a previous work, he did identify a Jaredite chronology starting in 3100 BC and extending to 570 BC (Sorenson 1969). In that 1969 work, he included a gap period of 100 years and, of necessity, gave many kings lifespans well beyond 100 years. Palmer (1982) also proposes a Jaredite chronology, extending from 2700 BC to 600 BC, assuming reigns of 70 years and a gap period of 130 years. It is important to note that the chronology in table 3 is a calculated framework based on known volcanic events as well as a known departure date range.		Gardner (2015) has argued for a shorter timeframe for the Jaredites—a total of 900 years, with an average reign of 30 years—based on the length of reigns of some known Maya kings, with no gap years between Riplakish and Morionton. Sorenson has indicated a span of 2,000 to 2,300 years (Sorenson 2013). Sorenson did not provide the methodology behind his most recent estimation, so comparisons of his method in that work is not possible. In a previous work, he did identify a Jaredite chronology starting in 3100 BC and extending to 570 BC (Sorenson 1969). In that 1969 work, he included a gap period of 100 years and, of necessity, gave many kings lifespans well beyond 100 years. Palmer (1982) also proposes a Jaredite chronology, extending from 2700 BC to 600 BC, assuming reigns of 70 years and a gap period of 130 years. It is important to note that the chronology in table 3 is a calculated framework based on known volcanic events as well as a known departure date range.

SpencerMarsh: /* The Final Battle */

2019-07-17T20:32:33Z

The Final Battle

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 17 July 2019
Line 181:		Line 181:

	How does one go about locating and excavating a battlefield? This rhetorical question points to many of the reasons why military conflict among the Maya went so long undetected by archaeologists. For example, David Webster, the leader in Mesoamerican war studies, observed, “If we had to rely only on archaeological materials, we would dismiss as inconsequential one of the most important components [i.e., warfare] in the structure and evolution of . . . society.”<ref>David Webster, “Warfare and Status Rivalry: Lowland Maya and Polynesian Comparisons,” in Archaic States, ed. Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 1998), 350–51.</ref> One reason is that “weaponry is seldom recovered from archaeological contexts [although it] is frequently depicted in art.”<ref>David Webster, “The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War,” Journal of World Prehistory 14/1 (2000): 101-2</ref> Yet artistic representations can be hard to turn into history. Rands’s dissertation in 1952 showed substantial artistic evidence of armed conflict during the Mesoamerican Classic period,<ref>Robert L. Rands, “Some Evidences of Warfare in Classic Maya Art” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1952).</ref> but hardly anyone picked up on it for another 25 years, when the excavation of the fortification at Becán was reported. Chase and Chase agree that “warfare is extremely difficult to see in the archaeological record.”<ref>Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, “Texts and Contexts in Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” in Brown and Stanton, Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, 171–88.</ref> This is true not just for Mesoamerica but for anyplace in the world.<ref>William Rathje, “Dr. Garbage” to archaeologists, has an authoritative word to say about the difficulties of battlefield archaeology: “At any battle site, archaeologists are enthralled by the specter of finding spear points and pieces of chain mail at the positions predicted by history or legend. Perhaps the most disappointed were the British archaeologists who excavated the reputed site of the Battle of Hastings, where William the Conqueror’s Normans decimated King Harold’s Anglo-Saxons, on the battle’s 900th anniversary in 1966. [All] the historical treasure trove they recovered consisted of a few human and horse teeth that survived the scavengers and the forces of nature. . . . After the deciding clash [at the Battle of Culloden] between the Scottish Clans and British troops on April 16, 1746, virtually all the dead were picked clean of weapons, armor, valuables, and clothing, down to the last memento, by the ubiquitous camp followers, both professional scavengers and ladies of the night. Then the bodies were neatly stacked in large piles and set ablaze.” William L. Rathje, “The World’s Oldest Profession,” MSW Management (The Journal for Municipal Solid Waste Professionals) (2002); at http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/The_Worlds_Oldest_Profession_3982.aspx.</ref>		How does one go about locating and excavating a battlefield? This rhetorical question points to many of the reasons why military conflict among the Maya went so long undetected by archaeologists. For example, David Webster, the leader in Mesoamerican war studies, observed, “If we had to rely only on archaeological materials, we would dismiss as inconsequential one of the most important components [i.e., warfare] in the structure and evolution of . . . society.”<ref>David Webster, “Warfare and Status Rivalry: Lowland Maya and Polynesian Comparisons,” in Archaic States, ed. Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 1998), 350–51.</ref> One reason is that “weaponry is seldom recovered from archaeological contexts [although it] is frequently depicted in art.”<ref>David Webster, “The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War,” Journal of World Prehistory 14/1 (2000): 101-2</ref> Yet artistic representations can be hard to turn into history. Rands’s dissertation in 1952 showed substantial artistic evidence of armed conflict during the Mesoamerican Classic period,<ref>Robert L. Rands, “Some Evidences of Warfare in Classic Maya Art” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1952).</ref> but hardly anyone picked up on it for another 25 years, when the excavation of the fortification at Becán was reported. Chase and Chase agree that “warfare is extremely difficult to see in the archaeological record.”<ref>Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, “Texts and Contexts in Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” in Brown and Stanton, Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, 171–88.</ref> This is true not just for Mesoamerica but for anyplace in the world.<ref>William Rathje, “Dr. Garbage” to archaeologists, has an authoritative word to say about the difficulties of battlefield archaeology: “At any battle site, archaeologists are enthralled by the specter of finding spear points and pieces of chain mail at the positions predicted by history or legend. Perhaps the most disappointed were the British archaeologists who excavated the reputed site of the Battle of Hastings, where William the Conqueror’s Normans decimated King Harold’s Anglo-Saxons, on the battle’s 900th anniversary in 1966. [All] the historical treasure trove they recovered consisted of a few human and horse teeth that survived the scavengers and the forces of nature. . . . After the deciding clash [at the Battle of Culloden] between the Scottish Clans and British troops on April 16, 1746, virtually all the dead were picked clean of weapons, armor, valuables, and clothing, down to the last memento, by the ubiquitous camp followers, both professional scavengers and ladies of the night. Then the bodies were neatly stacked in large piles and set ablaze.” William L. Rathje, “The World’s Oldest Profession,” MSW Management (The Journal for Municipal Solid Waste Professionals) (2002); at http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/The_Worlds_Oldest_Profession_3982.aspx.</ref>
	<br>		<br><br>
	A fundamental problem in interpreting the historical significance of warfare from the few remains revealed by archaeology was underlined by Stocker on the basis of Aztec history:		A fundamental problem in interpreting the historical significance of warfare from the few remains revealed by archaeology was underlined by Stocker on the basis of Aztec history:
	<br>		<br><br>
	Were it not for the written record, conquest as the major variable in the expansion of the Aztec state would never have been known. Aztec history spanned some 200 years, and [we know from their documents] they conquered 250 major centers. These centers had their own tributaries; therefore, they in essence conquered approximately 1000 to 2500 centers.[They] placed governors and some of their own population at only eight of these conquered centers. There is no evidence of an Aztec conquest at centers without governors, nor is there any evidence of Aztec presence at . . . tributaries of the sites at which governors were placed.<ref>Terry Stocker, “Conquest, Tribute and the Rise of the State,” in Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions: The V. Gordon Childe Colloquium, Mexico, 1986, ed. Linda Manzanilla, BAR International Series 349 (Oxford: BAR, 1987), 367.</ref>		Were it not for the written record, conquest as the major variable in the expansion of the Aztec state would never have been known. Aztec history spanned some 200 years, and [we know from their documents] they conquered 250 major centers. These centers had their own tributaries; therefore, they in essence conquered approximately 1000 to 2500 centers.[They] placed governors and some of their own population at only eight of these conquered centers. There is no evidence of an Aztec conquest at centers without governors, nor is there any evidence of Aztec presence at . . . tributaries of the sites at which governors were placed.<ref>Terry Stocker, “Conquest, Tribute and the Rise of the State,” in Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions: The V. Gordon Childe Colloquium, Mexico, 1986, ed. Linda Manzanilla, BAR International Series 349 (Oxford: BAR, 1987), 367.</ref>
	<br>		<br><br>
	If the same situation was the case in earlier centuries, then we must suppose that the archaeological evidence that has come forward in recent years in Mesoamerica must be seen as merely preliminary. Webster must be right in emphasizing the scale of the intellectual shift that has been required in coming to see a major role for warfare in Mesoamerican culture history.		If the same situation was the case in earlier centuries, then we must suppose that the archaeological evidence that has come forward in recent years in Mesoamerica must be seen as merely preliminary. Webster must be right in emphasizing the scale of the intellectual shift that has been required in coming to see a major role for warfare in Mesoamerican culture history.
	Fortifications are the most obvious material evidence for armed conflict. The first serious study of Mesoamerican fortifications was published in 1948 (in English in 1951) by archaeologist Pedro Armillas (a mentor of mine),<ref>Pedro Armillas, “Fortalezas mexicanas,” Cuadernos americanos 41/5 (1948): 143–63. For an English version, see Armillas, “Mesoamerican Fortifications,” Antiquity 25 (1951): 77–86.</ref> but his work depended strictly on documentary sources on the Aztecs.<ref>Angel Palerm, “Notas sobre las construcciones militares y la guerra en Mesoamerica,” Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 8 (1954): 123–34.</ref> The study was largely ignored by Mesoamericanist colleagues, just as Rands’s work was ignored by Mayanists. The conventional wisdom blinded experts to the significance of conflict in the cultures of the area. Decades later its importance became obvious as Webster and others “documented warfare over much of the [Maya geographical] range” by locating “destruction levels, mass burials, and fortifications from Middle and Late Preclassic times.”<ref>David Webster, “The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War,” Journal of World Prehistory 14/1 (2000): 69</ref>However, Webster warned, “no conclusions about war can be drawn on the basis of the lack of fortifications. . . . [Their] absence may be more apparent than real. Very flimsy defenses were highly effective given [limited] Maya military capabilities, and few traces of such constructions might survive or be initially recognized.”<ref>Webster, “Not So Peaceful Civilization,” 74; emphasis added.</ref>		Fortifications are the most obvious material evidence for armed conflict. The first serious study of Mesoamerican fortifications was published in 1948 (in English in 1951) by archaeologist Pedro Armillas (a mentor of mine),<ref>Pedro Armillas, “Fortalezas mexicanas,” Cuadernos americanos 41/5 (1948): 143–63. For an English version, see Armillas, “Mesoamerican Fortifications,” Antiquity 25 (1951): 77–86.</ref> but his work depended strictly on documentary sources on the Aztecs.<ref>Angel Palerm, “Notas sobre las construcciones militares y la guerra en Mesoamerica,” Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 8 (1954): 123–34.</ref> The study was largely ignored by Mesoamericanist colleagues, just as Rands’s work was ignored by Mayanists. The conventional wisdom blinded experts to the significance of conflict in the cultures of the area. Decades later its importance became obvious as Webster and others “documented warfare over much of the [Maya geographical] range” by locating “destruction levels, mass burials, and fortifications from Middle and Late Preclassic times.”<ref>David Webster, “The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War,” Journal of World Prehistory 14/1 (2000): 69</ref>However, Webster warned, “no conclusions about war can be drawn on the basis of the lack of fortifications. . . . [Their] absence may be more apparent than real. Very flimsy defenses were highly effective given [limited] Maya military capabilities, and few traces of such constructions might survive or be initially recognized.”<ref>Webster, “Not So Peaceful Civilization,” 74; emphasis added.</ref>
	<br>		<br><br>
	The failure of once-impressive walls to survive visibly is easy to document. An extreme example is a case recorded by the Spanish conquistadors. They reported the presence of a six-mile-long wall across a valley on the main route between the Valley of Mexico and neighboring Tlaxcala; the wall was 20 feet thick and nine feet high, with a wooden breastwork atop it.<ref>Hubert H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States (1875; repr., San Francisco: Bancroft, 1883), 2:416–17.</ref> Yet no trace of it has been reported by archaeologists. Furthermore, in colonial days the Spaniards forced the Indians of the Valley of Mexico to erect a great stone wall enclosing a huge area to contain the Europeans’ cattle. More than two million natives labored for four months on the vast project, yet today no trace of it has been identified.<ref>Henry F. Dobyns, “Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate,” Current Anthropology 7 (1966): 406.</ref> In Yucatan shortly before the Europeans arrived, “the temples and houses of the lords [of Mayapan] were said [in tradition] to have been surrounded by a wall, of which no trace could be found” by excavators.<ref>Harry E. D. Pollock et al., Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, Publication 619 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1962), 264.</ref> Much less could we expect to find more ancient defensive structures that had been deteriorating for longer periods. At Kaminaljuyu, after generations of archaeological research by many parties, only in the early 1990s did Japanese archaeologists find a 164-foot (50 m) segment of what they termed the “great wall”<ref>Kuniaki Ohi et al., “Los resultados de las investigaciones arqueológicas en Kaminaljuyu,” in X Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1996, ed. Juan P. Laporte and Héctor L. Escobedo (Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, 1997), 93–94. </ref>that dates back perhaps to the first civilized period there (ca. the sixth century bc, making it the earliest discovered fortification wall in Mesoamerica). It had been built of piled-up soil 25 feet (7.6 m) high. Finding a short section of that 2,500-year-old construction within the Guatemala City urban area was strictly a matter of luck; most of the original must have been destroyed long ago. Obviously the feature would have been functionally meaningless unless it had been completed around at least the heart of the city (as was the case later at Cholula and other Mesoamerican cities).<ref>Joseph B. Mountjoy and David Peterson, Man and Land at Prehispanic Cholula, Anthropology Publication 4 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1973), 3.</ref> Since the site of Kaminaljuyu is here considered to be the city of Nephi, and Nephi had a wall around it (Jacob 7:25; Mosiah 7:10; 9:8) at about that time, discovery of the Guatemalan wall by these researchers provides a striking correspondence. (Presumably, the wall around the city of Nephi would have been modeled in concept on the one that surrounded Jerusalem; compare 1 Nephi 4 and 2 Nephi 5:16.)		The failure of once-impressive walls to survive visibly is easy to document. An extreme example is a case recorded by the Spanish conquistadors. They reported the presence of a six-mile-long wall across a valley on the main route between the Valley of Mexico and neighboring Tlaxcala; the wall was 20 feet thick and nine feet high, with a wooden breastwork atop it.<ref>Hubert H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States (1875; repr., San Francisco: Bancroft, 1883), 2:416–17.</ref> Yet no trace of it has been reported by archaeologists. Furthermore, in colonial days the Spaniards forced the Indians of the Valley of Mexico to erect a great stone wall enclosing a huge area to contain the Europeans’ cattle. More than two million natives labored for four months on the vast project, yet today no trace of it has been identified.<ref>Henry F. Dobyns, “Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate,” Current Anthropology 7 (1966): 406.</ref> In Yucatan shortly before the Europeans arrived, “the temples and houses of the lords [of Mayapan] were said [in tradition] to have been surrounded by a wall, of which no trace could be found” by excavators.<ref>Harry E. D. Pollock et al., Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, Publication 619 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1962), 264.</ref> Much less could we expect to find more ancient defensive structures that had been deteriorating for longer periods. At Kaminaljuyu, after generations of archaeological research by many parties, only in the early 1990s did Japanese archaeologists find a 164-foot (50 m) segment of what they termed the “great wall”<ref>Kuniaki Ohi et al., “Los resultados de las investigaciones arqueológicas en Kaminaljuyu,” in X Simposio de investigaciones arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1996, ed. Juan P. Laporte and Héctor L. Escobedo (Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, 1997), 93–94. </ref>that dates back perhaps to the first civilized period there (ca. the sixth century bc, making it the earliest discovered fortification wall in Mesoamerica). It had been built of piled-up soil 25 feet (7.6 m) high. Finding a short section of that 2,500-year-old construction within the Guatemala City urban area was strictly a matter of luck; most of the original must have been destroyed long ago. Obviously the feature would have been functionally meaningless unless it had been completed around at least the heart of the city (as was the case later at Cholula and other Mesoamerican cities).<ref>Joseph B. Mountjoy and David Peterson, Man and Land at Prehispanic Cholula, Anthropology Publication 4 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1973), 3.</ref> Since the site of Kaminaljuyu is here considered to be the city of Nephi, and Nephi had a wall around it (Jacob 7:25; Mosiah 7:10; 9:8) at about that time, discovery of the Guatemalan wall by these researchers provides a striking correspondence. (Presumably, the wall around the city of Nephi would have been modeled in concept on the one that surrounded Jerusalem; compare 1 Nephi 4 and 2 Nephi 5:16.)
	<br>		<br><br>
	A supplementary correspondence involving the wall is that it needed consistent repair in order to retain its protective power. The wall found by the Japanese archaeologists was simply of piled-up earth, probably coated with a layer of clay. It would have been subject to erosion by the regular rains and thus required systematic maintenance. When the Zeniffites returned to the city of Nephi and reoccupied it, only a few years after Mosiah1’s people had abandoned the site, they immediately began to “repair the walls of the city” (Mosiah 9:8) to restore their previous function.		A supplementary correspondence involving the wall is that it needed consistent repair in order to retain its protective power. The wall found by the Japanese archaeologists was simply of piled-up earth, probably coated with a layer of clay. It would have been subject to erosion by the regular rains and thus required systematic maintenance. When the Zeniffites returned to the city of Nephi and reoccupied it, only a few years after Mosiah1’s people had abandoned the site, they immediately began to “repair the walls of the city” (Mosiah 9:8) to restore their previous function.
	<br>		<br><br>
	Archaeologists have been dealt a bad hand by history and the erosive forces of nature; nevertheless, through a combination of documentary history, art, and archaeology it has become possible to draw a partial picture of war in the Mesoamerican past. But so much depends on the mindset of the archaeologists who interpret the evidence that the picture may long remain incomplete and confusing. (Cowgill contrasts his conservative interpretation of the effects of war among the Maya with the views of military-minded Webster, even though they both dealt with the same set of facts.)<ref>George L. Cowgill, “Teotihuacan, Internal Militaristic Competition, and the Fall of the Classic Maya,” in Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. Norman Hammond and Gordon R. Willey (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979), 62.</ref><ref>John Sorenson, "Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book" (Provo and Salt Lake City: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and Deseret Book, 2013) Ch 18, "Warfare" under ''Problems for Archaeology: Evidence for Warfare''</ref></blockquote>		Archaeologists have been dealt a bad hand by history and the erosive forces of nature; nevertheless, through a combination of documentary history, art, and archaeology it has become possible to draw a partial picture of war in the Mesoamerican past. But so much depends on the mindset of the archaeologists who interpret the evidence that the picture may long remain incomplete and confusing. (Cowgill contrasts his conservative interpretation of the effects of war among the Maya with the views of military-minded Webster, even though they both dealt with the same set of facts.)<ref>George L. Cowgill, “Teotihuacan, Internal Militaristic Competition, and the Fall of the Classic Maya,” in Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. Norman Hammond and Gordon R. Willey (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979), 62.</ref><ref>John Sorenson, "Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book" (Provo and Salt Lake City: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and Deseret Book, 2013) Ch 18, "Warfare" under ''Problems for Archaeology: Evidence for Warfare''</ref></blockquote>

SpencerMarsh: /* Food and Water for Those on Board including Animals */

2019-07-17T20:31:51Z

Food and Water for Those on Board including Animals

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 17 July 2019
Line 118:		Line 118:
	these numbers will go up by 3-10x with even moderate activity or pregnancy/lactation. Higher salt intake (as it's the only means of preserving food at this time) would also increase water needs.</blockquote>		these numbers will go up by 3-10x with even moderate activity or pregnancy/lactation. Higher salt intake (as it's the only means of preserving food at this time) would also increase water needs.</blockquote>

	Propadeutically we should establish that the ocean crossing took the Jaredites 344 days and the text gives us good indication that they stopped along the way. In Ether 6:8 it states that “The wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land ''while they were upon the waters''”. That phrase can be interpreted to mean that they were continuously upon the water, but the interpretation with more explanatory power would be that they stopped occasionally~~. And indeed, this seems likely~~ since ~~we have~~ 344 days ~~to cover~~ and the average is no more than two-four months for a crossing (more information below). The next question we would need to answer is which ocean the Jaredites used to arrive in the New World---the pacific or Atlantic. There are good arguments for both sides.		Propadeutically we should establish that the ocean crossing took the Jaredites 344 days and the text gives us good indication that they stopped along the way. In Ether 6:8 it states that “The wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land ''while they were upon the waters''”. That phrase can be interpreted to mean that they were continuously upon the water, but the interpretation with more explanatory power would be that they stopped occasionally since they made the journey in 344 days and the average is no more than two-four months for a crossing (more information below). The next question we would need to answer is which ocean the Jaredites used to arrive in the New World---the pacific or Atlantic. There are good arguments for both sides.
	<br><br>		<br><br>
	<b>Atlantic Ocean</b>		<b>Atlantic Ocean</b>
Line 129:		Line 129:
	<br><br>		<br><br>
	While crossing the Pacific, it is possible that the Jaredites used “coasting” as a way of staying near land fall so that they could make any restock needed. It is now<ref>This line written 29 March 2019</ref> known that ancient transoceanic crossers made just such a journey<ref>See Jason Daley, “First Humans Entered the Americas Along the Coast, Not Through the Ice” <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-colonized-americas-along-coast-not-through-ice-180960103/#b4swDByY8eP6m68e.99> (accessed 29 March 2019); Cecily Hilleary, “Native Americans Call for Rethink of Bering Strait Theory” <https://www.voanews.com/a/native-americans-call-for-rethink-of-bering-strait-theory/3901792.html> (accessed 29 March 2019)</ref>. There are also several islands in the Pacific Ocean that could have been made for such a journey.		While crossing the Pacific, it is possible that the Jaredites used “coasting” as a way of staying near land fall so that they could make any restock needed. It is now<ref>This line written 29 March 2019</ref> known that ancient transoceanic crossers made just such a journey<ref>See Jason Daley, “First Humans Entered the Americas Along the Coast, Not Through the Ice” <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-colonized-americas-along-coast-not-through-ice-180960103/#b4swDByY8eP6m68e.99> (accessed 29 March 2019); Cecily Hilleary, “Native Americans Call for Rethink of Bering Strait Theory” <https://www.voanews.com/a/native-americans-call-for-rethink-of-bering-strait-theory/3901792.html> (accessed 29 March 2019)</ref>. There are also several islands in the Pacific Ocean that could have been made for such a journey.
	The journey, if made continuously, would only be about 2-4 months. Thor Heyerdahl made the trip on raft from Morocco to the Caribbean in two months<ref>Gardner ~~citing Allen~~, Second Witness. 229</ref>		The journey, if made continuously, would only be about 2-4 months. Thor Heyerdahl made the trip on raft from Morocco to the Caribbean in two months<ref>Gardner , ''Second Witness'' 229 citing Allen, ''Lands of the Book of Mormon''</ref>

	Either way, we have ability to resupply and make adjustments to travels as necessary, we have plausible indications in the text that this was so, and we have plausible routes for them to follow. We have at least a good chance that they did not bring livestock with them all the way to the new world as there is no mention of them upon arrival. We have no indication that women and men conceived while aboard so points about lactation are moot. The only activity reported among the Jaredites is "[singing] praises unto the Lord" and "not [ceasing to praise the Lord". This is light activity. Along with potable water brought from home and collected from stops a long the way, fresh water rain collection is available through vents built into the structures. See [https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Ether here] under "Joseph Smith and Jaredite Ships" for more information regarding likely structure of vents.		Either way, we have ability to resupply and make adjustments to travels as necessary, we have plausible indications in the text that this was so, and we have plausible routes for them to follow. We have at least a good chance that they did not bring livestock with them all the way to the new world as there is no mention of them upon arrival. We have no indication that women and men conceived while aboard so points about lactation are moot. The only activity reported among the Jaredites is "[singing] praises unto the Lord" and "not [ceasing to praise the Lord". This is light activity. Along with potable water brought from home and collected from stops a long the way, fresh water rain collection is available through vents built into the structures. See [https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Ether here] under "Joseph Smith and Jaredite Ships" for more information regarding likely structure of vents.