FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_beastie]

I just ordered a used copy of Gordon's book. I will read it, and I will dissect his references as much as possible. Of course, I can't very well dissect a reference to a tour guide who called something a horse, but I'll do the best I can.

From what I can figure out so far from doing various google searches, Cyrus Gordon is an example of a bright man who had a strange hobby. I compared him earlier to Barry Fell, another individual who went around collecting so-called "evidence" of Old World influence in the New World, and who is regarded as a crackpot by real scholars, and that may not be too far off. On the recent thread "The Noose again begins to tighten on the critics" by our beloved coggins, Fell was discussed at some detail.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... l&start=42

A professional conference was convened in 1977 at Castleton College in Vermont to consider the "evidence" reported in America B.C. Fell was one of the conference participants. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings was kept (Cook, 1987: 85-96). After others of those present had expressed doubts about America B.C. findings, Fell responded - with vehement invective. He charged his critics with being too "damn lazy" to read what he had written, so "ignorant" that they "can't even hold a Phoenician inscription the correct way up," and with being united in a jealous desire to protect their professions' conventional wisdom against the conflicting theories he has been developing. Displaying pictures of petroglyphs he claimed to have found in American caves and deciphered in Celtic Ogam, Fell refused to disclose their location. "As long as I am an unpronounceable person, I am not going to say where they are.

A 1977 review of America B.C. in the New York Times Book Review, by Glyn Daniel, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, England, described Fell's contention as "ignorant rubbish," reflecting a "set attitude of mind" that is "almost indistinguishable from a delusion" (Daniel, 1977). In characteristic fashion, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington published in 1978 a calm, reserved, meticulously careful Statement regarding America B.C. Authors Dr. Ives Goddard and Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, of the Institution's Department of Anthropology, listed five different sets of basic factual errors and anachronisms in the controversial volume that make it totally incredible (Goddard and Fitzhugh, 1978).

Professor F. H. Wilhelm Nicolaisen of the State University of New York at Binghamton, recognized expert on place names, has analyzed Fell's claims in America B.C. that the names of various New England towns and rivers are of Irish Celtic origin. Nicolaisen traces these names meticulously and irrefutably back to American Algonquin derivations (Nicolaisen, personal communication).

During the past five years, a number of widely recognized and respected archaeologists and linguists have had an opportunity to review the 1983 Wonderful West Virginia report of the Wyoming and Boone County petroglyphs. So far as appears, they all reject, on what seems to be solid ground, the Fell decipherment and interpretation.

The book "Fraud, Myths, and Mysteries - Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology" by Kenneth Feder devotes quite a few pages to Barry Fell alone. Not surprisingly, I've met several internet LDS who also refer to Fell as a source.

Cyrus Gordon seems to follow in Fell's footsteps in that he has declared Old World text has been found in several places in the New World, including things viewed as hoaxes by mainstream science, like Bat Creek Stone. I found this comment made by Peter T. Daniels, who is one of the few scholars in the study of writing systems:

Hinz was hardly responsible for the "rehabilitation" of Cyrus Gordon,
whose work on Ugaritic remains the foundation of work on that language
but who was relegated to a minor post at Brandeis University for most of
his career because he insisted on studying connections between the West
and the (Semitic) East. He also had an unusually high tolerance for
crackpottery -- the very first time I met him, in 1979, I asked whether
he actually believed all the stuff he'd written in *Before Columbus* --
and he thought for a moment and replied, "Well, it _could_ be so."

http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx ... -Triada-95

Now, I did discover one other reference to the "famous" man riding a horse at chichen itza. It's often repeated, like an echo chamber, in the internet world of Mormon apologetics, but it originates from the same source, the webpage that, like a bad zombie movie, keeps coming back to haunt me:

Benjamin Chapman's infamous (to me) essay on the evidence of horses in ancient america. Ugh, not again.

http://2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/doc ... orses.html

Note the picture of the "bearded man riding a horse" with the caption:

The Above picture of a bearded man and a horse is carved on the Temple of Palques, Chichen Itza, Yucatan Mexico . It was photographed by Otto Done and appeared in The Improvement Era December 1955.

I consider Chapman "infamous" due to his willingness to provide, as evidence, the Ica Stones, which are a well known hoax. Anyone this sloppy should not be relied upon as a serious source.

Hmmm, could this be the FAMOUS horse picture to which crocket refers? I'd bet money on it. The photograph is of such awful quality it isn't possible to see what the picture really is. When I first read Chapman's page I spent hours trying to track down what in the heck this picture really was, with no success whatsoever. If this is really a "man riding a horse", then the photographer is the only person in the world who noticed it, because I can't find one reference to this in scholarly sources (and one of my books focuses quite a bit on chichen itza).

While I may never figure out what Otto Done, the photographer, actually took a picture of, I think it's clear it's not a man riding a horse. Chichen Itza is one of the most famous ancient mesoamerican sites, widely discussed and photographed. Finding clear evidence of a HORSE during the specified time period would be an ASTOUNDING find. It would not be ignored by every real scholar of chichen itza. So, with only this to go on, I suspect that this is a similar situation to those who declare they see elephants on Maya ruins, which are usually, in reality, sculptures of a particular mesoamerica deity with a long, snout-like nose.

And remember, this picture was published in the New Era in 1955. If there was ANYTHING, ANYTHING to it, even the slightest hope that it may be legit, I have zero doubt that John Sorenson would have used it as a source, as would Brant Gardner.

[_rcrocket]

What hubris. You provide the lamest references for your claims ("a university professor told me it was obviously European") and act like you have the SLIGHTEST clue about ancient Mesoamerica, and don't even know about the most important archaeological finds, the four codices, which, unlike the Popol Vuh, are originals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices

These codiecs are not "literature." The Mayans did not have a written language..

It would help me understand your argument better if you or Tarski could cite me directly to a peer-reviewed article which completely rules out pre-Columbian horses. Tarski talks about "consensus" and I think you said there was a Smithsonian article directly on point. Cite me a scientific paper.

The picture of the horse at Chitzen Itza is at http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html. Don't ask me to vouch for the rest of the page. That photo can be seen in many places.

But see, http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Maya-Robe ... 0804723109 who says that photo is really a jaguar serpent, citing Plate 1 of a 1967 book by Ralph Roys.

But, I've read the Roys book (actually 1933), "The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel," and Plate 1 can be seen at http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/cbc/cbc03.htm. I don't see what the critic is pointing out.

[_ozemc]

I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.

You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.

That's unfortunate.

Quite the contrary. Nothing was said about this being dishonest.

The point is .... if you claim something is true, back it up. If you can't, or won't, then don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

[_rcrocket]

The point is .... if you claim something is true, back it up. If you can't, or won't, then don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

Exactly. That is why I would like a cite to a scientific paper completely ruling out horses in pre-Columbian America. [Hopefully that paper will deal with some of the contrary positions, but let's just see what you and your fellows can produce.]

rcrocket

[_Polygamy Porter]

The point is .... if you claim something is true, back it up. If you can't, or won't, then don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

Exactly. That is why I would like a cite to a scientific paper completely ruling out horses in pre-Columbian America. [Hopefully that paper will deal with some of the contrary positions, but let's just see what you and your fellows can produce.]

rcrocket

Why should we non believers in the Book of Mormon story have to prove that something does not exist?

The burden of proof is on you, the believer of the Book of Mormon story.

[_rcrocket]

The point is .... if you claim something is true, back it up. If you can't, or won't, then don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

Exactly. That is why I would like a cite to a scientific paper completely ruling out horses in pre-Columbian America. [Hopefully that paper will deal with some of the contrary positions, but let's just see what you and your fellows can produce.]

rcrocket

Why should we non believers in the Book of Mormon story have to prove that something does not exist?

The burden of proof is on you, the believer of the Book of Mormon story.

Well, we aren't in a courtroom here. I've produced a scientific paper by a Smithsonian archaeologist claiming to find horse bones within the bones of domestic cattle. I've produced a book which argues for pre-Columbian horses on the basis of the observation of early journalists. I've produced a picture from a temple wall in Chitzen Itza. I can understand it would be easier to dispose of my sources with a wave of the hand.

But, it seems to me that if horses are completely ruled out of the Americas (remember, Tarski says that this is the "consensus" opinion) that I can read a scientific paper to that effect. I don't think that is too difficult or too rude a thing to request, do you? [I certainly would expect that such a paper would exist, it would seem, but it strikes me as odd that such a paper is not cited by you and your distinguished collegues.]

rcrocket

[_beastie]

These codiecs are not "literature." The Mayans did not have a written language..

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Why don't you save yourself some embarrassment and admit that you haven't studied ancient Mesoamerica or the Maya, and can't even be bothered with a basic google search on the subject. The fact that the Maya had a written language which can now be translated has been the origin of the amazing movement forward in what we know about ancient Mesoamerica.

The Maya did have a written language. This is Maya 101. Once again, your hubris on this subject is breathtaking. You know next to nothing about the ancient Maya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_hieroglyphics

It would help me understand your argument better if you or Tarski could cite me directly to a peer-reviewed article which completely rules out pre-Columbian horses. Tarski talks about "consensus" and I think you said there was a Smithsonian article directly on point. Cite me a scientific paper.

Geez, pick up any basic book on the matter, written by actual experts in the fields, not linguistics with a hobby. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Or Horses Through Time, Carnegie Museum of Natural History. I already provided you with a link to my lengthier essay on the subject that contains many scholarly references, including this one from the aforementioned Horses through Time:

“Without getting into details, which are murky to begin with, starting in the very late Pliocene, about 2.5 million years ago, most North American fossil faunas contained two to four species of Equus. Often there was a small, pony-sized type coexisting with a larger form, both with relatively stout limbs. An additional, very slender-legged, usually medium-sized species probably related to the Asiatic asses was occasionally present as well, especially in the early and middle Pleistocene. There are more Pleistocene fossil localities than from any other age, because this period is the most recent, and Equus is common in almost every locality that contains large mammals. This situation continued until near the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,000 years ago, when many North American mammals became extinct over a short period of time. Victims of this mass extinction event included mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, camels, tapirs, and horses among the large herbivores as well as the large carnivores that preyed upon them, such as lions, saber-toothed cats, and dire wolves. There is an ongoing controversy as to the immediate cause of this event, with rapid climatic and ensuing vegetational change, and overhunting by humans being the two opposing views. In either case the 57-million –year history of the horse in North America came to an end, at least until the introduction of domesticated horses and donkeys by European explorers and colonists.

North American Equus also dispersed to other continents. It first appeared in South America in the middle Pleistocene and successfully spread throughout the continent. There it coexisted with Hippidion and Onohippidium until the end of the Pleistocene. Then, as in North America, all South American horses became extinct.” (page 31)

There is no debate in the scientific community as to whether or not the horse went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene era, the only debate is WHY.

This is an example of some ideas WHY:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 152806.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... ction.html

Here's chapter from a book discussing the extinction:

http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/l ... 5lec04.htm

Look, all you have to do to educate yourself just a bit about this matter is to type in:
Pleistocene + horse extinction + America in a google search.

The picture of the horse at Chitzen Itza is at http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html. Don't ask me to vouch for the rest of the page. That photo can be seen in many places.

This is the same photo I already linked. It is worthless as evidence for several reasons: one is that it is that the photo is horrible quality. I can't tell what the heck it is a sculpture of. The second is that only a very vague reference is given for its location, and I have not been able to verify a picture of a horse anywhere, in any reliable academic source about chichen itza. Stop referring to this pointless photo, and don't pretend that we should view the source as reliable when it also contains KNOWN FRAUDS as "proof".

Yes, the photo can be seen in many places, all pages supporting the Book of Mormon. You have the nerve to actually ask for a peer reviewed scientific text demonstrating what anyone with even the most cursory knowledge about the history of the horse in the New World knows, and then present this garbage as evidence?

But see, http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Maya-Robe ... 0804723109 who says that photo is really a jaguar serpent, citing Plate 1 of a 1967 book by Ralph Roys.

But, I've read the Roys book (actually 1933), "The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel," and Plate 1 can be seen at http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/cbc/cbc03.htm. I don't see what the critic is pointing out.

Once again, the photo is of such poor quality you can't figure out a darn thing about it, including whether it's part of the jaguar serpent. And is this the Hunter photo the amazon review mentioned? Your link, as well as Chapman's, say it is a photo by Otto Done.

edit: it is the same photo, I found this reference to Otto Done, a photographer, with Hunter.

[Tator]

crocket's link did not show the photo of the alleged serpent jaguar as I believe he intended. I think this is the photo he meant to link:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/cbc/img/pl1a.jpg

I think rc carrier is correct. It is difficult to tell because the Mormon photo is such poor quality, but if you copy each photo over, beside each other, on another document, you can see how the outlines match.

I've studied the two photos even more, and they are DEFINITELY the same. Look, in particular, at the dark line underneath the so-called 'horse's head' - it goes to the left in a slight diagonal, and then branches down. You can see the exact same dark line under the jaguar.

This makes me wonder if the photo was deliberately produced at such a poor resolution in order to make it look like a horse, when the real photo is obviously not a horse.

[_Who Knows]

crocket's link did not show the photo of the alleged serpent jaguar as I believe he intended. I think this is the photo he meant to link:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/cbc/img/pl1a.jpg

I think rc carrier is correct. It is difficult to tell because the Mormon photo is such poor quality, but if you copy each photo over, beside each other, on another document, you can see how the outlines match.

Can you recap what the arguments surrounding this photo are? I'm lost. Do the apologists say this is a horse?

[_rcrocket]

As I told you, I fully expected scientific articles attesting to the lack of a pre-Columbian horse. Thank you for providing three cites, although two are not peer-reviewed types but they appear to be bbased upon peer-reviewed papers.

As to the Chitzen Itza horse; no I can't say that the image you provided is the source of that Otto Done photo. That is the opinion of a lay critic.

I'll be at Chitzen Itza later this year and will look for it, but I imagine that (1) photography is prohibited and (2) others have tread this ground since Done and failed. But I'll try. I've been there before. There must be a million plus carvings.

rcrocket