Another tall tale from the annals of Book of Mormon Archaeology?

[Gadianton]

Checking back in on the "reminiscences" thread over at SeN, the controversies multiply. A very odd message surfaced by a shadowy figure called Alliumnate, with a single post to his or her name:

FYI - At least one of the 'evidence central' articles you posted appears to contain false information. Specifically, the statement by Dr. Sorenson regarding the discovery of Vitis vinifera seeds in the Chiapas archaeological site. I would think that such a spectacular claim would have prompted a reference check somewhere along the way. But, I've seen it on multiple BOMC related websites as well as on the Maxwell Institute website.

Wait, wtf?

For students of Mopologetics, confirmation bias, and in general the complete lack of peer review found within that world, this is turning into an interesting case study. As our shadowy figure says, this claim turns up all over Book of Mormon Central and the Maxwell Institute, and in some cases, in very strong forms.

consider this note from the MI is taken from Mormon Codex, by John Sorenson:

Our understanding of wine in ancient Mesoamerica was enhanced 30 years ago when Martínez M. excavated a site of Late Pre-Classic date (first centuries BC and AD) beside the Grijalva River in Chiapas (the location that is taken here to be the land of Zarahemla). There he carefully recovered and studied all traces of plant remains. He found seeds of Vitis vinifera, the wine grape known in Europe, from which he concluded that the fruit had been used to manufacture wine equivalent to that of the Old World. Thus the Book of Mormon statements about wine could turn out to refer either to that drink in the usual European sense or to alternative Mesoamerican intoxicants that were based on other fruits.

At any rate, the Proprietor promptly responds to our shadowy figure with supreme confidence:

I expect that the reference has been checked. But I'll pass your comment on to the relevant folks.

Of course! Just as he suspected the Dale's paper had been thoroughly vetted.

So what's the big deal here? Well, here's what wiki says:

Vitis vinifera, the common grape vine, is a species of Vitis, native to the Mediterranean region, Central Europe, and southwestern Asia, from Morocco and Portugal north to southern Germany and east to northern Iran.[1] There are currently between 5,000 and 10,000 varieties of Vitis vinifera grapes though only a few are of commercial significance for wine and table grape production.[2]

So I think the idea is that it's another case of "horses living in stables" where they wouldn't be. Of course, the apologists have themselves completely covered: if it isn't really the common grape, then it's the "tapir" equivalent. But the point here isn't so much the strength of the claim, but how poorly research is done amongst the Mopologists. They regurgitate quotes, cite and recite sources without any skepticism, and it's basically just a big testimony-fest.

I quickly found an external summary of the Don Martín (Chiapas, Mexico) excavation in Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America; an encyclopedia.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ar ... =en&gbpv=0

Situated on the bank of the Grijalva River in the Chapatengo-Chajel region, this site was explored during salvage operations at the Angostura Dam and is now under water.... Archaeological investigations focused on the explo-ration of these trash deposits, which revealed such mater-ial culture remains as all the vessel forms of San Jacinto Black ware, which is found in the Grijalva Valley and the Guatemala Highlands. Vegetable food remains included beans, maize, Canarulia, Manihot, amaranth, chile pep-pers, and other plants. Animal remains included white...

Okay, I suppose somewhat like Rusty not mentioning a co-pilot, the fact that this encyclopedia doesn't mention the common grape doesn't mean it hadn't been found, it's just that; wouldn't it be a really big deal if it had been, and worthy of a mention, just as our shadowy figure suggests to the Proprietor?

I also found this reference from New Approaches:

Don Martin is a small site consisting of five raised mounds (perhaps used for public purposes) and a number of small structures which are probably the remains of houses. The plant remains were recovered from the excavation of several bell-shaped pits dating to the Protoclassic period (200 B.C.-200 C.E.). This period falls into the time frame during which Sorenson postulates the area was part of the land of Zarahemla. The seeds of more than fifty species of plants and other plant parts were among the remains recovered from the pits (Martínez Muriel 1978, 104). Identification of the plants was difficult because most of the remains were carbonized, but twenty-seven plants were identified as to species, ten as to family, and the rest were not identified. Several of those identified were domesticates, including the jack bean (Canavalia), manioc (Manihot), two species of maize (Zea mays), and two species of common [p.302] bean (Phaseolus). Other species that may have been cultivated include amaranth (Amaranthus), chili pepper (Capsicum), goose foot (Chenopodium), sunflower (Helianthus), tobacco (Nicotiana), and Crescentia, Acromia mexicana, and sideroxilon tempisque. Five wild plants were gathered: fig, palm, portulaca, vitis, and annonaceae.

Huh. It's a real head-scratcher, because the article is responding so Sorensen, but doesn't even mention grapes. That's pretty crazy because Matheny, an experienced Chiapas archaeologist would no doubt mention the old-world grape found as a "totally foreign" plant at Don Martin irrespective of Sorensen because it's such a glaring "hit", wouldn't she?

ETA: it does mention vitis under wild plants; i missed that when I wrote this.

"New Approaches" must have been published prior to Sorenson's discovery of the common grape, it's just that, the source material for that discovery was already well established as part of the Book of Mormon Mesoamerica profile. For all of those years, he missed the clear reference to Martinez M. walking the banks of the Grijalva River and discovering the common grape seeds, and surmising a transoceanic transplant?

For me this was getting really weird. And it got really incomprehensible when Google led me to this paper by Sorenson:

https://archive.org/stream/sino-platoni ... ._djvu.txt

John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen, “Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages”; Sino-Platonic Papers, 133 (April 2004)

Vitis, wild, called bejuco de agua (vid ).” Under “Estimulantes” he gives: “ Vitis. silvestre (wild), vino, fruto,fermentado ({assumed} fermented).” 121. Cites Miranda 1975-1976,1, 175-6, as reporting from field survey in Chiapas three species: V. bouraeana, or watervine; V tiliifolia, also called watervine; and V vinifera, or ‘vid europea.’ He also mentions V labrusca, or ‘vid americana,’ leaving it unclear if he considered this a fourth species of grape. A rather good quality wine can be made from the juice (no species pinpointed). Vitis is wild and only slightly represented in our materials. 125. As indicated previously, utilizing the juice of the grape, pressed and fermented, he says that it is possible to produce a good quality wine. 176. Furthermore, the sap from the stem of the grape plant is fermented (today) to make a drink called ‘taberna.’

Okay that's clear as mud for me, and just not getting the clear, triumphant visual that Sorenson portrays on Codex, of seeds found on a river bank proving the common grape. Searching on section of text within this article finally revealed the smoking gun; a post on MDD, no less:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71 ... hy/page/3/

I'm not familiar with the bulk of John Sorenson's work...... most of it is outside my areas of interest. However, I am a wild edible plant enthusiast, and was intrigued when I saw his claim that Vitis vinifera seeds, dated to the late pre-classic era, were found in Chiapas. In Mormon's Codes he says:

"Our understanding of wine in ancient Mesoamerica was enhanced 30 years ago when Martínez M. excavated a site of Late Pre-Classic date (first centuries BC and AD) beside the Grijalva River in Chiapas (the location that is taken here to be the land of Zarahemla). There he carefully recovered and studied all traces of plant remains. He found seeds of Vitis vinifera, the wine grape known in Europe, from which he concluded that the fruit had been used to manufacture wine equivalent to that of the Old World."

If true, this would be a big deal, so I looked into it further. In an earlier paper, co-authored with Johannessen, and to an academic, non-LDS audience, he lacked the certainty that is displayed in Mormon's Codex (John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen, “Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages” Sino-Platonic Papers, 133 (April 2004)). In this paper, Vitis vinifera is listed as one of the species in which evidence existed, but was not definitive.

When reading the Vitis section in that paper, it appears clear why he lacked certainty. From his paper:

"Martínez M. 1978, 14, 21. The site of his study is a few miles upstream from Santa Rosa, near Laguna Francesa, on the south bank of the Grijalva River, southern Mexico. He worked primarily on the contents of two bottle-shaped cavities (chultuns) filled with trash. Dated to the Proto-Classic period (200 BC to AD 200), i.e., the second half of Chiapas V through VII (ceramic periods). He used flotation to extract seed from excavated material. On 105ff is Cuadro No. 13, classification of vegetal remains. “Vitis, wild, called bejuco de agua (vid).” Under “Estimulantes” he gives: “Vitis. silvestre (wild), vino, fruto, fermentado ({assumed} fermented).” 121. Cites Miranda 1975–1976, I, 175–6, as reporting from field survey in Chiapas three species: V. bouraeana, or watervine; V. tiliifolia, also called watervine; and V. vinifera, or ‘vid europea.’ He also mentions V. labrusca, or ‘vid americana,’ leaving it unclear if he considered this a fourth species of grape. A rather good quality wine can be made from the juice (no species pinpointed). Vitis is wild and only slightly represented in our materials. 125. As indicated previously, utilizing the juice of the grape, pressed and fermented, he says that it is possible to produce a good quality wine. 176. Furthermore, the sap from the stem of the grape plant is fermented (today) to make a drink called ‘taberna.’"

So, he's reporting that Martinez found seeds from a Vitis species called bejuco de agua. That commonly refers to Vitis tiliifolia, not V. vinifera. The V. sylvestre mentioned is actually not a proper taxonomical name, but has occasionally been used as a synonym for V. labrusca, a native north American wild grape. The only place where V. vinifera is mentioned in this passage is in the Miranda citation (which is a modern floristic survey post dating the known introduction of European grapes by centuries). It appears that he is really stretching to make the connection.

From what I can tell, archaeobotanists and others who have cited the Martinez thesis, treat this as a description of wild grape. I'm not sure how Sorenson came to the conclusions that he did in the Sino-platonic paper. Then, in Mormon's Codex, he states it as fact. Did he re-read the thesis and uncover more evidence? It's difficult for me to believe that based on how he initially described his source (I would love to get a copy of the Martinez thesis, if anyone has it).

I have to wonder how he came to the conclusion that V. vinifera was in Mexico in the late pre-classic period. This has me questioning his methodology, or at least his presentation of evidence.

Wow! First of all, nice to see our old friend Cacheman kicking some ass over at MDD. If I recall correctly, Cacheman might be understating his expertise on plants a little, but no matter. Judging by the next couple pages of the thread, it looks like Robert F. Smith and others, even Brandt, just plain ignored Cacheman. Cacheman's discovery is absolutely devastating, and if the "appropriate parties" can't come up with a response, and I'm pretty sure the Proprietor will get nothing back from them, it's game over for any last shred of claim to credibility.

I think this is Top Ten material or at least a runner up for 2021. It reminds me straightaway of Beastie's discovery of fast-and-loose footnotes from Sorenson that established smelting steel, that eventually drew out the entire FARMS department, and Beastie was banned from FAIR.

[Philo Sofee]

Very interesting detective work here Gad. It's rinky-dink parallels like this that continually marred Sorenson's credibility through the years with other Mesoamerican archaeologists. Michael Coe didn't mind Sorenson as a fellow scholar, but was completely turned off by his methods, his research, his over-riding biases, and especially his ridiculous conclusions apparently confirming the Book of Mormon, which Coe vehemently decimated, as does Ritner with John Gee's Egyptological claims. The Mormon apologists just have so little of nothing that no one can actually sink their teeth into and fortify and verify.

[Doctor Scratch]

You know, there are actually times--even after all these years as the B. H. Roberts Chair--when you start to forget how thoroughly lying is interwoven into the heart of Mopologetics. Sorenson seems to have completely fabricated that claim about the grapes. This is in line with the so-called 2nd Watson Letter, Midgley's retractions concerning Gina Colvin and his threats to "pay her a visit," Gee's "two inks" fiasco, and so on. There will be these big whoppers every so often, but then things can go quiet for a while.

In any case, I too was intrigued by the appearance of Alliuminate. I'm starting to wonder if we will see more such "shadowy figures" in the coming months, as the official retirement looms....

[Physics Guy]

The paper from Sorenson and Johannessen is available here with no paywall. Vitis vinifera is first mentioned in Table 2 on page 9, among "Flora for which evidence is significant but not decisive". The evidence for V. vinifera is on page 165 (this is a long paper); it's what Cacheman quoted.

Cacheman omitted a few mostly irrelevant sentences from the beginning of this passage in S&J, where S&J just gave some general background on grapes. Also omitted by Cacheman, though, is the letter grade. S&J give letter grades to all their evidences; they give V. vinifera a "B minus". So even S&J are a little iffy about their European grapes. If you read their own paper carefully, though, you have to conclude that that these guys were really easy graders, because this B- evidence is ridiculously flimsy.

From looking at the rest of Sorenson's and Johannessen's paper it's clear that the various numbers in the quoted text (14, 21 through 105ff. to 176) are page numbers in the unpublished thesis of Martinez. Carefully reading what S&J quote from Martinez, however, makes it clear that Martinez did not claim to have found Vitis vinifera.

Martinez is directly quoted by S&J as mentioning "Vitis silvestre (wild)". Vitis silvestris is sometimes used as an abbreviation for "Vitis vinifera subspecies silvestris" which are wild Vitis vinifera as opposed to domesticated, but that's silvestris with -is, the Latin name for the subspecies. Silvestre with an -e would be wrong as Latin because Vitis is feminine. According to Google Translate, however, "silvestre" with an -e is just Spanish for "wild". It's clear from some of S&J's other quotes from Martinez that his thesis was written in Spanish.

So Martinez was clearly not claiming Vitis vinifera at all, but only native American wild grapes, which are within the Vitis genus but are different species from vinifera. These were eaten by Native Americans but never made into wine—like any fruit their juice will ferment but this does not turn out well. Members of the Vitis genus have been in the Americas for millions of years; the only issue is transmission of the Eurasian species vinifera. If Martinez had really found vinifera he would have written about it in such explicit length that no ambiguity around -e/-is could possibly have confused what he meant. It would have been big news for Martinez.

(You can't argue from the italics that Martinez's silvestre must have been a typo for Latin silvestris because it was in italics like Vitis, because S&J immediately quote Martinez's Spanish "vino, fruto, fermentado" in italics as well. So either Martinez was italicising some Spanish in that passage or S&J are careless with italics in quotes.)

The explicit mention of Vitis vinifera seems to be only in a work by "Miranda" that Martinez cites on pages 175-176 of his thesis. Whatever that work by Miranda about Vitis vinifera in Chiapas was, S&J do not cite it or quote it directly themselves.

It's hard to tell what that work by Miranda actually was. A document "Miranda 1952-1953" appears in the S&J bibliography; it seems to be a report, in two volumes published in 1952 and 1953, by the department of publicity and tourism of the state of Chiapas. This Chiapas tourism department report is cited several times in S&J's paper, always as "Miranda 1952-1953", in connection with other Mexican plant life besides grapes. In the S&J discussion on their page 165 of Vitis vinifera, however, they say that Martinez cited "Miranda 1975-1976" for V. vinifera in Chiapas.

No "Miranda 1975-1976" appears in the S&J bibliography. It's possible that "1975-1976" on page 165 was a typo for "1952-1953", but S&J cite Miranda 1952-1953 directly several other times in their paper, so it would be weird for them to mention it here only as a citation in Martinez. It rather looks as though Miranda 1975-1976 is another document, different from the Miranda 1952-1953 that appears in S&J's bibliography, which S&J never tracked down and read for themselves, but only noted as something cited by Martinez.

The way in which S&J report Martinez's citation of Miranda 1975-1976 is vague. They don't give a direct quote from Miranda but just say that Martinez "Cites Miranda ... as reporting". I'm not entirely confident that S&J's quotation chain has preserved the true sense of what Miranda said about Vitis vinifera. It might well be that the Vitis vinifera found by Miranda was post-Columbian contamination and that Miranda said so clearly. If S&J had read this Miranda work, on the other hand, and if it really supported pre-Columbian Vitis vinifera, then they would surely have cited and quoted it directly themselves, rather than only as a citation by Martinez who didn't find vinifera. So the most charitable explanation I can find is that they never actually checked Miranda 1975-1976.

My best guess is that Sorenson and Johannessen were such enthusiasts for pre-Columbian transmission that even a tenuous link was enough for them to happily add Vitis vinifera to their long list of transmitted species. They retained enough scholarly habits to feel a need to present a good half-page of citations and quotes to support this inclusion, but they were too far gone in enthusiasm to notice the difference between Spanish -e and Latin -is and realise that most of what they were writing was irrelevant, being about native American wild grapes. Perhaps they had even reached that self-deceptive stage of enthusiasm at which they half-unconsciously on-purpose avoided checking out Miranda 1975-1976 itself, and just went with the happy impression they got from his citation by Martinez, because if they had checked out Miranda's paper itself it might have turned out not to support pre-Columbian Vitis vinifera at all, whereas if they left it as a citation from Martinez they could give their pet theory the benefit of the doubt and keep the grapes in their list.

If Mormon apologists have proudly cited Sorenson for the pre-Columbian transmission of European grapes to the Americas then I'm afraid this does show all the bad things one might fear for the intellectual integrity of Mormon apologetics: unwarranted confidence by lay apologists in the thoroughly documented research of great Mormon scholars; long papers with intimidating footnotes that collapse under casual scrutiny even by a non-expert like me; supposedly great Mormon scholars who were really only careless enthusiasts.

Is all the other Mormon evidence just as bogus as this thing with the grapes? After this example I'm less keen to "engage" with any more long Mormon screeds. This one has just been such crap. It all boils down to nothing but leaping to conclusions from ambiguous citations without checking out the original source, and Spanish so bad that you can catch it with Google Translate without knowing Spanish. If people like Sorenson had lots of much better other stuff, why would they have weakened their case by including this crappy example of grapes? If people like Sorenson don't have anything better than this grape thing, who does?

All very interesting. Man, I really need to get back to work. I didn't actually read that 270 page paper, only searched it for a couple of things, but this has still been quite enough procrastination for my morning.

[hauslern]

Hello just curious are you the same physicsguy on MAD talking about dualism?

[Physics Guy]

Yes. I used to post there but got fed up and stopped at one point. I came back briefly for Analytics’s thread about particle physics.

[Gadianton]

I think I heard glass shatter from that uncontested slam dunk, Physics Guy. What a profound embarrassment!

The text file I had was such a mess -- I did notice that "B - " but I was uncertain about where that came from. Yes, that B- becomes a matter-of-fact statement in Codex:

Our understanding of wine in ancient Mesoamerica was enhanced 30 years ago when Martínez M. excavated a site of Late Pre-Classic date (first centuries BC and AD) beside the Grijalva River in Chiapas (the location that is taken here to be the land of Zarahemla). There he carefully recovered and studied all traces of plant remains. He found seeds of Vitis vinifera, the wine grape known in Europe,

What gets me more than anything is that first part "Our understanding of wine..."

That's clearly intended to read as if scholarly consensus has been updated -- and then later, first on the list is the discovery of the Eurasian domestic grape. It's not just that there's evidence, or a paper published 30 years go, or that he's sure, but it's a commonly accepted fact he can relay in passing with minimal attribution (in Codex).

and just went with the happy impression they got from his citation by Martinez, because if they had checked out Miranda's paper itself it might have turned out not to support pre-Columbian Vitis vinifera at all,

yep. If there was a chance that at one time, somebody may have discovered a real link, better if that paper is lost. Doctor Scratch is right --- Second Watson letter.

Is all the other Mormon evidence just as bogus as this thing with the grapes? After this example I'm less keen to "engage" with any more long Mormon screeds. This one has just been such crap. It all boils down to nothing but leaping to conclusions from ambiguous citations without checking out the original source, and Spanish so bad that you can catch it with Google Translate without knowing Spanish.

Honestly, this 'grape' thing was a new one for me, that's the lesser part of the reason it caught my eye, but yeah, a lot of hits were coming up for it. I'll be checking on those again later today.

If you've followed Interpreter, this is a rare kind of evidence these days. Gone are the days of discovering smelting sites and horse bones, the main arguments are now linguistic. Nobody dares to do archeology anymore.

But even back in the days of a pick ax and pre-cancerous forearms, expectations were set low. Brandt Gardner famously pronounced the paradigm shift from looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, to looking for Mesoamerican in the Book of Mormon many years ago.

So its an anachronism itself to even see a strong claim of Book of Mormon evidence these days, that's probably the main reason it caught my eye. Remember, the best thing Hamblin could come up with off the top of his head with Jenkins was "Nahom", and he was like second in command. He even wrote extensively on warfare in the Book of Mormon, he'd published professionally on medieval warfare.

And by the way, it's a very small group who have ever gone this route in the Church. On my mission, one of the guys told me his father was an archaeologist who worked in south / central America. The guy dug for a living. Don't bring up "archaeology" and "the Book of Mormon" in the same sentence if you were in the same room with him. His father was fully active.

The things that hit me most I think are those where if they were true, standard Encyclopedia entries would be very different than they are.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

A quick Google search reveals several apologetic articles that have perpetuated this falsehood:

"Grapes/Wine in North America."
https://bookofmormonevidence.org/grapes ... h-america/

"Wine in Pre-Columbia America."
https://mi.byu.edu/another-Mormons-code ... soamerica/

"How Could The Book of Mormon Mention Wine?"
https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/qa/ ... ntion-wine

"Anachronisms"
https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/qa- ... nachronism

"Why Does the Book of Mormon Mention Wine, Wine Presses and Vineyards?"
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... ne-presses

"Scripture Study."
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... ne-presses

[Bought Yahoo]

Good catch. Dr. Sorenson's work on the Book of Mormon is an outright troubling issue for the church and will only increase in its troublesomeness. The Mathenys exposed him in several venues (Sunstone and the book) but weren't all that enthusiastic about their challenges, in my opinion. Sorenson really looked bad by responding to Deane by saying she was attacking the Church by attacking Sorenson's methodology. Really foul.

I catch a lot of heat by saying the Sorenson's methods are not science. But I think there has been some inroad into accepting Sorenson's theories. I don't think the Ensign or Liahona will ever again publish anything about Mesoamerican theories. And I also suspect, mere speculation, that Dr Mark Alan Wright's tenure in the Dept of Religion at BYU is coming to an end.

[Moksha]

He might have been referring to the American concord grape that Nephites used on their bagels along with smoked Nova salmon.