FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_rcrocket]

Just in case anyone other than, of course, crocket, doubts that the codies are, indeed, LITERATURE (caps just for crocket so he can have a momentary sense of superiority), here's a link that discusses the translation of the Dresden Codex:

http://www.mayalords.org/mayafldr/dres1.html

Each of the codices, including the Dresden, appear to have several pages dedicated to the origins of mankind. Each chooses the element of creation that is most importantat to their particular area. The Codex Ríos first showed a watery place where meteorites are falling, ending the four-page "story" with a beautiful mountain covered with flowers and fruit in spite of the meteorites still falling. The Vindobinessis used a "story board" segment ending with the newly discovered corn culture.

Well, my goodness, that almost sounds like, why, could it be, LITERATURE?

Good caps.

Tell me; should I rely upon your argument that Mayan literature does not mention horses? What value is that argument if a codex cannot be interpreted and there are only 3 or 4 of them? Why did you make this argument given your extraodinary expertise with literature?

rcrocket

[_beastie]

Tell me; should I rely upon your argument that Mayan literature does not mention horses? What value is that argument if a codex cannot be interpreted and there are only 3 or 4 of them? Why did you make this argument given your extraodinary expertise with literature?

Sigh. Do you read any link given to you?

Some parts of the codices can be translated, some cannot. Vast progress has been made in the translation of the Maya language (or other dialects), but it is not perfect. However, a great deal of the written language - in codices as well as on stelae, pottery, buildings, etc - has been translated. This is how scholars have learned so much about Mesoamerican history in the past two decades.

Animals are mentioned in these mythological stories, including the one piece of literature you are willing to recognize, the Popol Vuh. Animals are also frequently depicted in their art.

None of this literature or art contains any reference to the horse. And while many animals bones have been found in Mesoamerica, no horse bones have. If you would bother to read the link I've given you to my lengthy essay on the subject, you would see quite a bit of references to academic sources on the subject. But I doubt you will bother.

It's quite a feat to continue your arrogance when you've shown extraordinary ignorance on this thread.

[_rcrocket]

Tell me; should I rely upon your argument that Mayan literature does not mention horses? What value is that argument if a codex cannot be interpreted and there are only 3 or 4 of them? Why did you make this argument given your extraodinary expertise with literature?

Sigh. Do you read any link given to you?

Some parts of the codices can be translated, some cannot. Vast progress has been made in the translation of the Maya language (or other dialects), but it is not perfect. However, a great deal of the written language - in codices as well as on stelae, pottery, buildings, etc - has been translated. This is how scholars have learned so much about Mesoamerican history in the past two decades.

Animals are mentioned in these mythological stories, including the one piece of literature you are willing to recognize, the Popol Vuh. Animals are also frequently depicted in their art.

None of this literature or art contains any reference to the horse. And while many animals bones have been found in Mesoamerica, no horse bones have. If you would bother to read the link I've given you to my lengthy essay on the subject, you would see quite a bit of references to academic sources on the subject. But I doubt you will bother.

It's quite a feat to continue your arrogance when you've shown extraordinary ignorance on this thread.

I don't mind being called names. Perhaps I am arrogant.

And I don't have a lot of faith in what Popul Vuh says, literature or not. How are we to assess a Mayan writing in Spanish, composed by priests absolutely hostile to Native religion?

And, according to the Ray research report from the Journal of Mammalogy, horse bones have indeed been found in the Yucatan. You simply dismiss this Smithsonian scholars' finding because, well, you just want to do so! There is no other reason. You condemn the age of his report (1957) yet you rely on a 1933 report on Chitzen Izta I have provided to you with diagrams. Go figure. Pick and choose; I guess that is a good way to avoid difficult evidence.

Thanks for the little lecture on the progress of Mesoamerican studies. As I stood at the top of a temple in Uxmal, I looked at the Yucatan basin before me. As far as the eye could see were thousands of hillocks; maybe 100 foot high each. The peninsula looked quite hilly. My Mayan guide remarked that the peninsula is completely flat, rising only slightly from the east to the west at Uxmal. The hillocks were all individual buildings -- thousands of them -- which have never been excavated or even opened. It was an amazing site. My guide remarked that so little has been done.

I cite this little anecdote not to say that the absence of evidence implies evidence (i.e., until we excavate these sources we don't know if there are horses; I think that is fallacious and condemn anybody who argues that the absence of evidence is proof of its existence). I have always conceded, and continue to willingly concede, that the overwhelming consensus of experts is that horses died out long before Columbus and long before any possible Lehite civilization.

No, rather, I cite this little anecdote to remark that your silly little posts and remonstrances, and those of your pal Phaedrus, demonstrate remarkable naïvété about the state of American anthropology, of the scientific method in general, and of the difference between consensus and unanimity in science. But, I am willing to be patient.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

I don't mind being called names. Perhaps I am arrogant.

You shouldn't mind. You have assumed a superior attitude with almost every post you make on this board. This is the first time I've seen you seriously engage topic, and you reveal a stunning level of ignorance on the subject. When forcibly confronted with your own erroneous statements, you refuse to admit your own error.

And I don't have a lot of faith in what Popul Vuh says, literature or not. How are we to assess a Mayan writing in Spanish, composed by priests absolutely hostile to Native religion?

No doubt they removed all those references to horses.

And, according to the Ray research report from the Journal of Mammalogy, horse bones have indeed been found in the Yucatan. You simply dismiss this Smithsonian scholars' finding because, well, you just want to do so! There is no other reason. You condemn the age of his report (1957) yet you rely on a 1933 report on Chitzen Izta I have provided to you with diagrams. Go figure. Pick and choose; I guess that is a good way to avoid difficult evidence.

No, I don't dismiss it solely due to the age, but due to the other factors mentioned here. Did you pay attention to any of them?

And which report with diagrams are you talking about?

"pick and choose" coming from you.... priceless.

No, rather, I cite this little anecdote to remark that your silly little posts and remonstrances, and those of your pal Phaedrus, demonstrate remarkable naïvété about the state of American anthropology, of the scientific method in general, and of the difference between consensus and unanimity in science. But, I am willing to be patient.

Silly little posts and remonstrances.... coming from you... someone who thought the Maya didn't have a written language... someone who demanded peer reviewed articles proving that scholars maintain there were no horses during the specified time frame in the Americas.....

You'd be better off sticking to correcting people's capitalization and spelling.

[_beastie]

I will say one good thing that has come from this discussion is that crocket pointed me in the right direction to figure out what in the heck that popular photograph of "bearded man riding a horse" was really of, and exactly where it was taken. It is one more piece of popular internet Book of Mormon "evidences" that has been revealed as ridiculous and borderline fraudulent.

Well, really, another good thing is seeing exactly what crocket is made of.

[_rcrocket]

"pick and choose" coming from you.... priceless.

The tit for tat schoolyard comeback really isn't that convincing. I don't mind the continued insults. I think that is just the way things are around here.

I grant you the right to reject out of hand the Smithsonian scholar's find about horses. [I suspect you haven't even read the article. Am I right? Somebody tell me how to upload the image of the article and I'll do it; the copyright has expired; I have no clue about putting stuff on the internet.]

I just don't see the overlay on those Chitzen Itza images. I've tried and don't see it. Can you photoshop them or something and demo the overlay for us all? I think you're not looking at the image rr carrier is referring to.


rcrocket

[_beastie]

The tit for tat schoolyard comeback really isn't that convincing. I don't mind the continued insults. I think that is just the way things are around here.

You enjoy it and participate. Otherwise you wouldn't have made a name for yourself by correcting posters' spelling and capitalization.

I grant you the right to reject out of hand the Smithsonian scholar's find about horses. [I suspect you haven't even read the article. Am I right? Somebody tell me how to upload the image of the article and I'll do it; the copyright has expired; I have no clue about putting stuff on the internet.]

I told you I do not have access to the article. This is just one more thing out of many you have ignored in my posts. The find was already addressed even outside the article, but if you can find a way to provide access to the article, of course I'll read it. I ordered your Gordon book, after all. (and will mightily enjoy it)

I just don't see the overlay on those Chitzen Itza images. I've tried and don't see it. Can you photoshop them or something and demo the overlay for us all? I think you're not looking at the image rr carrier is referring to.

So if you don't believe they're the same image (which I do) Sorenson already explained he thinks it was a deer (and he's actually an expert in ancient Mesoamerica, unlike Hunter, Chapman, or the various other people who love this photo).

I don't know how to photoshop, but maybe someone else does. You have to stop looking at the details, and look at the shadows. Look at the marked shadow right under the "horse's" neck. Now look how it branches down into three smaller branches. You can see the same branched-out shadow under the jaguar's paw. Going left from there you can vaguely see the shadows of the jaguar's haunch on the "horse" in the same area. The go to the left some more and see the boundary of the jaguar's tail. There is some sort of small elevation right behind the tail (you can't tell what it is on the photo), but this is a "lighter" area, which you can also see on the horse.

Now go back and start over, this time looking right above the horse's head. You can see another dark shadow patch, broken by the "ear". This is the darker indentation right above the jaguar's paw. If you go right above that darker shadow, where the jaguar's head is, you can see another lighter area on the "horse". Now go to the left and look at the jaguar's tail. You can see the same lighter area in the same spot on the "horse".

These shadows and lighter areas match too well for this not to be the same item.

The site you linked for rc carrier's item did not have the actual photograph on it, which is why I supplied another link. But if you look at the addresses, you can see it's the same item you tried to link.

[_rcrocket]

I will try and look at the image more closely. Like I say, I will be at Chitzen Itza and will try and find it in the identified temple. Probably impossible for lay eyes.


But I wonder about all those Native American cave drawings showing Indians riding horses, throwing spears at elephants, and milking cows.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

But I wonder about all those Native American cave drawings showing Indians riding horses, throwing spears at elephants, and milking cows.

Vague statements like this mean nothing. You have to specify which cave, which drawings. There are some that have been demonstrated to be post-conquest, others that are frauds.

So why aren't you willing to trust Sorenson - an expert on your side - in his opinion that this sculpture is a deer, if you doubt it is the same image as the jaguar? Picking and choosing again?

[_rcrocket]

But I wonder about all those Native American cave drawings showing Indians riding horses, throwing spears at elephants, and milking cows.

Vague statements like this mean nothing. You have to specify which cave, which drawings. There are some that have been demonstrated to be post-conquest, others that are frauds.

So why aren't you willing to trust Sorenson - an expert on your side - in his opinion that this sculpture is a deer, if you doubt it is the same image as the jaguar? Picking and choosing again?

There is not a Sorenson book with which I agree. There is no "side" here. Characterizing me as on a "side" will be a mistake.

I like those Toltec cave drawings show Native Americans forging iron implements, making gold plates, eating goats, riding horses and elephants. Image 10b-5 was particularly interesting; a light-skinned Native American with a headband (looks like an exercise sweatband) writing on what looks like gold plates The particular find by The British Museum scientists at Chiapas Site No. 56A is particularly interesting. I've never heard anybody say that their finding was a fraud.

[We're going to kick you off this board summarily if you don't provide cites for your assertions.]

rcrocket