Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[cacheman]

The Book of Mormon mentions chariots and horses, which King Lamoni orders to be prepared for a journey:

6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

7 And he said unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison.

8 And it came to pass that as Ammon and Lamoni were journeying thither, they met the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land. (Alma 20:6-8)

Apologetic answers have been very interesting regarding this description (Mike Ash provides a good summary of the reponses).

1. Loan-shift words. Some apologists argue that the words "chariots" and "horses" don't mean what we naïve fundamentalists think they do. Brant Gardner, for example, suggests that chariots are probably the litters that Mayan kings used for conveyance, and the horses are ceremonial "battle beasts" associated with the king. Curiously, such apologists also insist that the Book of Mormon does not associate horse and chariots with transportation, though the above passage clearly associates them with Lamoni's impending journey. Is this possible? Perhaps, but it's certainly not plausible and requires doing significant violence to the text.

2. Mesoamerican evidence for horses and chariots. Others believe that there really were chariot-like wheeled conveyances, but they were pulled by animals such as deer or tapir (in another fun loan-shift approach), or possibly now-extinct equine animals. They tell us that American horses may have died out long ago, and it wouldn't be surprising if we just didn't find any (as an analogy he repeats the debunked claim by John Tvedtnes that no lion remains have been found in Palestine and the also bogus claim from Bill Hamblin that no horse remains have been found among ancient Hun artifacts).

Some apologists also point out that the wheel was known in Mesoamerica, as it appears on small ceremonial items and toys. Obviously, they tell us, if they had wheels for such small objects, they must have had larger wheeled conveyances, such as chariots. Game, set, and match, right?

Not so fast. There is an important reason that the wheel was not used in conveyances: there were no suitable beasts of burden to pull them. The tapir, often cited by apologists, is a largely nocturnal animal that spends most of the daytime sleeping. At night, they forage in muddy places or graze from river bottoms. Here's a description from a University of Texas tapir conservation web site:

During the day you will find Sirena tapirs sleeping in mud holes. They have even been seen sleeping with caymans in some of the very wet mud pits! Sleeping in these holes is much cooler and keeps some of the bugs down. Tapirs wake up and start moving around 4 PM. They are most active from 4PM to 5AM. The tapirs will visit the beach at least once a day. A reason for this beach visit may be to obtain salt and minerals from the ocean.

The tapir have four splayed soft toes on their front feet and three on their rear feet, which are suited for the water and mud they live in. However, their feet are not suited at all for travel or transporting materials and people. Andean peoples had llamas, alpacas, and vicuñas, but there is no similar animal among the Mesoamericans. Deer were domesticated for meat, but not as beasts of burden.

Thus, the real reason the wheel was not used except in small items is that there were no draft animals to take advantage of the technology. In societies where the wheel is introduced for conveyance, its use spreads quickly to other uses, such as pulleys, mills, and pottery wheels. In Mesoamerica, none of these were used.

The Maya understood the rotation principle of the wheel--they used it in spinning thread and drilling stone--and they actually made wheeled toys. They rolled quarried stone over logs and used rope and wooden levers to lift heavy objects. But the Maya never built wheeled transport or employed pulleys. (Foster, Lynn V. and Matthews, Peter, Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, Oxford UP, 2002, p. 314).

In short, there were no beasts of burden in Mesoamerica, nor was the wheel used in transportation. This makes the description of horses and chariots completely anachronistic, unless you accept that Mormon originally wrote, "Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his ceremonial battle beasts and his wheel-less litter."

[_MCB]

Andean peoples had llamas, alpacas, and vicuñas, but there is no similar animal among the Mesoamericans.

I just love that trap. For some reason they haven't swallowed it. Just too obvious.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Runtu,

The first (chronologically speaking) mention of horses (of the 13 verses that mention them) occurs in 1 Nephi 18:25, where it mentions that they found them in the wilderness in their new world. It also says that they found goats and wild goats. What is the difference between the goat and the wild goat?

Ben M.

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

The first (chronologically speaking) mention of horses (of the 13 verses that mention them) occurs in 1 Nephi 18:25, where it mentions that they found them in the wilderness in their new world. It also says that they found goats and wild goats. What is the difference between the goat and the wild goat?

Ben M.

Beats me. As I said, it's not the wording but the use of beasts of burden that is the issue. Loan-shifting can explain things like the difference between goats and wild goats, but it doesn't work for finding a suitable beast of burden. I'd say Brant's explanation is the only one that could possibly work, but you have to take some liberties with the text.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

So, here is the next question. In your opinion, which of the characters in the Book of Mormon (assuming it is an authentic text) had the possibility of ever seeing a real horse (of the sort you imagine when you see the word "horse")?

Ben M.

[_Themis]

I'd say Brant's explanation is the only one that could possibly work, but you have to take some liberties with the text.

And it is still so implausible as to not convince many members. I used to think you had to be somewhat dishonest to come up with some of this stuff, but have learned just how far we can sometimes go to delude ourselves in trying to protect beliefs. I remember discussing this very topic with Brant years ago at Madd. The problem for members who are seeking information is one giving it to them, and two coming up with such bad explanations to explain why it is not a problem. I know I will be ignored due to lack of understanding, but LDS apologia helps to create LDS non-believers much more then any other source. If the church could go back and erase all of the LDS apologia and then just simply say it is all anti-Mormon lies, then they would have many more members sitting in the pews this Sunday.

[cacheman]

So, here is the next question. In your opinion, which of the characters in the Book of Mormon (assuming it is an authentic text) had the possibility of ever seeing a real horse (of the sort you imagine when you see the word "horse")?

Ben M.

I'm talking about beasts of burden, no matter what you want to use (deer, tapir, curelom, whatever). It's not just the word "horse" that's anachronistic; it's the concept.

Suppose Lehi's family was familiar with horses and presumably their use pulling chariots. If we accept that horse and chariot vaguely refer to a beast of burden and some kind of vehicle (and I know Brant disputes this), then logically, we should find evidence of beasts of burden and vehicles. The lack of suitable animals prevented the development of vehicles and wheeled technology. So, either the scripture I cited does not actually refer to draft animals and vehicles (Brant's position), or it's an anachronism.

[_Buffalo]

So, here is the next question. In your opinion, which of the characters in the Book of Mormon (assuming it is an authentic text) had the possibility of ever seeing a real horse (of the sort you imagine when you see the word "horse")?

Ben M.

Only the initial migratory groups of Nephites, Mulekites and Jaredites. However, horses are mentioned throughout the Book of Mormon, from Nephi son of Lehi to Moroni & Ether.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

So, Buffalo sees the issue. Goats and wild goats are also mentioned in other places - and yet we also assume that at least in its original meaning, only those in the first generation would have an understanding of what the goat and the wild goat really were.

I think that where I fundamentally disagree with Runtu is that we can deal with this issue in isolation. After all, from my perspective, he has brought up the one phrase which, with respect to the horse, causes problems contextually for a theory of semantic extension. (I prefer this term, by the way, because "loan shifting" seems to imply replacement instead of expansion). But at the same time, the rest of the Book of Mormon, where horses are never ridden, are never used in battle, are never described as being beasts of burden - is quite happy with such a theory.

The issue is a bit more expansive than this. After all, both perspectives place the production of the Book of Mormon in the early 19th century culminating in a final product around 1830. I am not sure what theory of authorship Runtu favors, but my version suggests that the Book of Mormon is a translation in some sense from an ancient source. But, since we both agree that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, the appearance of a horse in it isn't necessarily anachronistic. This isn't an apologetic argument, its merely a statement of assumptions.

What I see, Runtu, is that you don't want to dig into your assumptions - you want to simply press them as a starting point for the discussion. It is a challenge for these discussions, since I don't accept many of your assumptions and you don't accept mine - so how do we avoid talking past each other? Can you really challenge my view of semantic extension without actually engaging in the whole argument I make over production? If my model makes sense given the assumptions I bring, does your presenting a different model with different assumptions change my conclusions?

I'm talking about beasts of burden, no matter what you want to use (deer, tapir, curelom, whatever). It's not the word "horse" that's anachronistic; it's the concept.

In this case, I think there are other issues. Perhaps the fist I raise (in response to your assumptions) is the question of what sort of influence a beast of burden would have (along with the wheel). The horse was a necessity for large city growth in Europe - primarily because wheat (and oats) are generally inefficient agriculturals when compared to the maize agriculture of Mesoamerica. You should read David Batten's article "Horse Power Wheat, Oats, Maize, and the Supply of Cities" in Ancient Mesoamerica 10 (1999) pp. 99-103 (published by Cambridge University Press). In the abstract (which is probably something you can look up and verify) he writes:

Lack of draft animals is often considered to have been an impediment to urban growth in Mesoamerica. Transport, however, was only one of several factors that influenced the growth of cities. This paper contrasts the effects of energetic efficiency differences between horses and human porters with productivity differences between European and Mesoamerican agricultural systems. Depending on strength and nutritional requirements, horses may be from one to five times as efficient as human porters. Furthermore, horses compete with humans for food. Where the horse played a major transport role, one-third of available, arable land was devoted to oat production. With this in mind, I compare maize versus wheat productivity to show that a unit of land in Mesoamerica could support up to twice as many people as the same unit of land in Europe. Thus, the transport advantage enjoyed by European cities is essentially offset by a more intensive agricultural system in Mesoamerica.

You state that:

The lack of suitable animals prevented the development of vehicles and wheeled technology.

But, we have to ask ourselves what was the advantage that would be gained in such an environment by this development, would it be sustainable, and so on. And, if we agree with Batten, would this imply that due to the cost of ownership (which would be much higher in Mesoameria for a horse - staying for the moment with a horse model - than it would have been in Europe), that the horses would have existed largely as the property of the wealthy and the elite classes. I am curious as to whether you have given this much thought in the context of Brant's Mesoamerican model that he uses.

But to make it a bit more concise, would Brant agree with the assumptions that you have made in your post, and if not, would those disagreements make it hard if not impossible to accept your conclusions when framed by those assumptions? You point out the one passage that seems most problematic to a theory that seems to fit quite well with the rest of the text and a general lack of a beast of burden (which is not evidenced anywhere else).

One final thought - in your assessment of the authorship of the Book of Mormon - why don't the native Americans ride their horses? I can't think of another contemporary book about them that doesn't have this feature.

Ben M.

[_Runtu]

So, Buffalo sees the issue. Goats and wild goats are also mentioned in other places - and yet we also assume that at least in its original meaning, only those in the first generation would have an understanding of what the goat and the wild goat really were.

I understand the issue as you do. If we accept the statement, these are words that would have been understood in the local context, not necessarily to Joseph Smith and his day. I think we agree, then, that the straightforward reading is not tenable (i.e., beasts of burden and wheeled vehicles).

I think that where I fundamentally disagree with Runtu is that we can deal with this issue in isolation.

I'm not dealing with it in isolation, just pointing out that one either must assume a "semantic extension" theory, or agree that it's an anachronism. To make it work, one must divorce the words from the context of beasts of burden and transportation, which Brant does. I'm not ruling out Brant's version, though I find it a tad strained.

After all, from my perspective, he has brought up the one phrase which, with respect to the horse, causes problems contextually for a theory of semantic extension. (I prefer this term, by the way, because "loan shifting" seems to imply replacement instead of expansion). But at the same time, the rest of the Book of Mormon, where horses are never ridden, are never used in battle, are never described as being beasts of burden - is quite happy with such a theory.

That's not quite true. Ether 10 associates "working beasts" with the tools the Jaredites made.

The issue is a bit more expansive than this. After all, both perspectives place the production of the Book of Mormon in the early 19th century culminating in a final product around 1830. I am not sure what theory of authorship Runtu favors, but my version suggests that the Book of Mormon is a translation in some sense from an ancient source. But, since we both agree that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work, the appearance of a horse in it isn't necessarily anachronistic. This isn't an apologetic argument, its merely a statement of assumptions.

Fair enough.

What I see, Runtu, is that you don't want to dig into your assumptions - you want to simply press them as a starting point for the discussion. It is a challenge for these discussions, since I don't accept many of your assumptions and you don't accept mine - so how do we avoid talking past each other? Can you really challenge my view of semantic extension without actually engaging in the whole argument I make over production? If my model makes sense given the assumptions I bring, does your presenting a different model with different assumptions change my conclusions?

I'm not challenging your view of semantic extension. I specifically said that it's the only option available to an apologist. My quarrel is with the folks who insist that Nephites did have beasts of burden, etc.

In this case, I think there are other issues. Perhaps the fist I raise (in response to your assumptions) is the question of what sort of influence a beast of burden would have (along with the wheel).

Please don't hit me with that raised fist. ;-)

The horse was a necessity for large city growth in Europe - primarily because wheat (and oats) are generally inefficient agriculturals when compared to the maize agriculture of Mesoamerica. You should read David Batten's article "Horse Power Wheat, Oats, Maize, and the Supply of Cities" in Ancient Mesoamerica 10 (1999) pp. 99-103 (published by Cambridge University Press). In the abstract (which is probably something you can look up and verify) he writes:

Lack of draft animals is often considered to have been an impediment to urban growth in Mesoamerica. Transport, however, was only one of several factors that influenced the growth of cities. This paper contrasts the effects of energetic efficiency differences between horses and human porters with productivity differences between European and Mesoamerican agricultural systems. Depending on strength and nutritional requirements, horses may be from one to five times as efficient as human porters. Furthermore, horses compete with humans for food. Where the horse played a major transport role, one-third of available, arable land was devoted to oat production. With this in mind, I compare maize versus wheat productivity to show that a unit of land in Mesoamerica could support up to twice as many people as the same unit of land in Europe. Thus, the transport advantage enjoyed by European cities is essentially offset by a more intensive agricultural system in Mesoamerica.

You state that:

The lack of suitable animals prevented the development of vehicles and wheeled technology.

But, we have to ask ourselves what was the advantage that would be gained in such an environment by this development, would it be sustainable, and so on. And, if we agree with Batten, would this imply that due to the cost of ownership (which would be much higher in Mesoameria for a horse - staying for the moment with a horse model - than it would have been in Europe), that the horses would have existed largely as the property of the wealthy and the elite classes. I am curious as to whether you have given this much thought in the context of Brant's Mesoamerican model that he uses.

I would think, then, with more intensive and productive agriculture, this would have encouraged the use of beasts of burden, as there would need to be less land dedicated to their feed. But again, this doesn't fundamentally challenge anything I've said, as it explains why beasts of burden weren't used, not that they actually were.

But to make it a bit more concise, would Brant agree with the assumptions that you have made in your post, and if not, would those disagreements make it hard if not impossible to accept your conclusions when framed by those assumptions?

Ben M.

I already know Brant doesn't accept the assumption that horses and chariots indicated beasts of burden and vehicles. Maybe I was a little snarky regarding Brant, but I think his explanation is the only one possible. I don't think it works well, but it's not impossible.