http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals/Elephants
First of all, they say that mammoths were in the Americas as recently as 3,000 years ago, putting them in Jaredite times. How do they get this dating? An article in a popular magazine, Scientific Monthly, written in 1952 by Ludwell Johnson, a Civil War historian. More recent actual science tells us that mammoths became extinct in the late Pleistocene era, which is much earlier.
They then give us some dates from isolated islands in the Bering Sea, plus this little tidbit:
In the contiguous United States Mead and Meltzer provided an age of 4,885 years for a dated mammoth specimen. (James I. Mead and David J. Meltzer, “North American late Quaternary extinctions and the radiocarbon record, In P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein (eds.) Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson, University of Arizona Press. 1984), 440-450.)
Going to the article in question, we find that the authors rated the specimens by reliability, and they state that they consider those samples with a rating of 8 or above to be reliable. The age Brown and Roper give is from a single sample rated at a reliability of 6, thus below their standard for reliability. Plus, the sample is from bone collagen, about which they say:
It is important to note that after we had examined the data it was apparent that collagen-derived dates were behaving unpredictably, often giving internally inconsistent results. This reinforces the cautions of Taylor (1980) and others on the use of this material in dating; thus we viewed collagen-derived dates, regardless of their score, with some suspicion.
So, is FairMormon correct that these scientists concluded that Mammoths lived until 2,500 years BC? Here's the relevant part of their conclusion:
When one considers only those genera for which we have demonstrably reliable dates (those with a score of 8 or better) that are not derived from bone collagen (Camelops, Equus, Mammut, Mammuthus, Nothrotheriops, Panthera), a familiar pattern appears. These reliable dates, predictably on genera for which we have relatively large sample, indicate that late Pleistocene extinctions laster no later than 10,000 year B.P. and possibly were complete by 10,800 year B.P. ...
Mammut, the predominantly eastern taxa, may have become extinct by approximately 14,000 year B.P. in the western states, although this western sample is extremely small. ... It appears that the mammoth became extinct at approximately the .same time in both the eastern (10,600 year B.P.) and western states (10,500 year B.P.)
To recap, Roper and Brown would have us accept a date from a sample that did not meet the researchers' criteria for reliability and were of a sample type that the researchers caution is wildly unreliable.
There's also a citation from John Swanton about the mythical beast (actually it is just one beast) that Fair says acts like an elephant:
A long time ago a being with a long nose came out of the ocean and began to kill people. It would root up trees with its nose to get at persons who sought refuge in the branches, and people lived in scaffolds to get away from it.
I should point out that, contra Fair, it doesn't say anything about trampling.
Later, Fair tells us "Similar traditions have been documented for Native American groups from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico persuading some scholars that they are based upon a core memory of actual historical encounters with elephant-like species who may have survived into the region as late as 3,000 years ago."
Again, this is a summary of the Ludwell Johnson article, though it's presented as if it's further evidence for the 3.000-year dating.
These myths could possibly reflect cultural memory of mammoths, but the dating from the Fair article is off by about 7,000 years.
Then comes this bit, which made my jaw drop:
Pre-Columbian traditions from Mexico tell of monstrous ogre-like giants who once inhabited the region and were subsequently killed following the arrival of Aztec ancestors. These tales attribute some human characteristics to these legendary giants, while other ones seem less so. The giants were said to have long tapering arms and could tear up trees as if they were lettuce.
I don't know what to say about this one, as the reference in Torquemada (which is incorrectly cited, as it should be 1:32) is to a chapter about giant men. The story cited is that the Tlaxcalteca encountered a heavily armed group of very tall and strong men. Knowing they could not hope to prevail against these giant men, the Tlaxcaltecans pretended to have peaceful intentions and invited the giants to dine with them. Once the giants were intoxicated, the Tlaxcaltecans stole the giants' weapons and then ran and hid in the trees. Upon awakening, the giants are said to have broken the branches of the trees off as if they were merely stripping leaves (not lettuce), but the Tlaxcaltecans eventually prevailed against the unarmed and drunken giants.
Torquemada, citing Acosta and his own experience, tells us that the Spaniards had found two fossilized giant's teeth that were as big as a man's fist and weighed 2 pounds. He talks about finding long thigh bones and a very large skull, but there's nothing about long, tapered arms. And Torquemada tells us the giants weren't killed by the Aztecs but died off because, aoccording to local legend, there wasn't enough food to support their large bodies.
Does this sound remotely like an elephant to anyone? I would suggest that the FairMormon folks either remove or heavily revise the article about elephants. I can't decide if it's just poorly researched or willfully dishonest. I hope it's the former.
