Tuesday, March 7, 2017

What Has Happened to Common Sense? –Part V

Continuing from the previous post, we take a look at other areas where common sense seems lacking as theorists taut their particular theories and maps regarding the geographical setting of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon, and ignore clear descriptions Mormon left us . Take, as an example, those in the Malay Peninsula camp that completely ignore two all important factors: 1) The winds and currents do not blow from Arabia to Malay; and 2) Moroni told Joseph Smith that the Plates contained information of the inhabitants of “this continent.” How on earth can you ignore the common sense that tells you Malay, which is on a totally different continent in another hemisphere, could not possibly be the location for the Land of Promise? 
    As stated throughout this series, the problem arises when theorists start comparing scriptural references with their chosen locations. As an example, Mormon tells us that Moroni prepared his defenses against the Lamanites in two distinct ways:
1. By “digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites” (Alma 50:1); and
2. By “building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8).
    Now, clearly, Moroni did both. The stone walls were far more permanent both around the cities and around the land, but there were also wooden stakes driven into the ground on the tops of the heaped up Earth “ridges” (Alma 50:2). However, it is amazing that all theorists other than Mesoamericanists, spend a lot of time trying to sell us on the “heaps of Earth,” but totally ignore the “stone walls.” Probably, this is because the Malay, Baja California, Heartland, Great Lakes and Eastern U.S. theorists can claim the heaps of earth and the timbers have all deteriorated by now and no sample in this lands can be pointed to in order to show they once existed. However, if they acknowledge that stone walls were built all around the cities and the land, they haven’t a leg to stand on since no area outside Mesoamerica and Andean Peru have stone edifices, and only Andean Peru has stone edifices of the Jaredite and Nephite period.
Top: Stacked stone claimed to be a defensive wall in North America (Tennessee) that is only three-feet high and would not keep an invading army at bay; Bottom: A true defensive wall of the type found in Andean South America that was built for defense to keep an invading army from attack a city as the type Moroni built (Alma 48:8)

    Since Mormon makes it quite clear that “stone walls were built around cities and around the land,” then common sense would tall any honest individual that any Land of Promise location without remnant defense walls built around cities, and the land, must be discarded. Again, that eliminates all but Mesoamerica and Andean Peru.
    It simply is not intellectually honest to deny this specific fact!
    In addition, stacked stones, i.e., piles of stone on top of one another, is not a defensive wall. It might well be a division line, a boundary, the edge or outline of a field or location, but because such walls can be knocked down with little effort, certain do not qualify for “defensive walls,” which by their very terminology would require great stability to keep from being knocked down and circumvented.
Typical stacked stone walls found in the Eastern U.S., claimed by theorists to be defensive walls; however, they are neither tall enough nor strong enough to keep an enemy from breaching them

    Again, we are talking about common sense here. The stone walls were mentioned by Mormon in the context of Moroni “had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort,” and they had been “taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary.” These walls were meant to strengthen the defenses of the Nephites against their hereditary enemy, the Lamanites. In fact, their enemy, in this case “the Lamanites, or the Amalickiahites, were exceedingly astonished at their manner of preparation for war,” (Alma49:9) which Moroni had accomplished.
Stone defensive walls in Andean South America that would ensure stopping an army’s attack on a city and would withstand any attempt to knock it down

    The “chief captains of the Lamanites were astonished exceedingly, because of the wisdom of the Nephites in preparing their places of security” (Alma 49:5), because “to their uttermost astonishment, they were prepared for them, in a manner which never had been known among the children of Lehi” (49:8).
    This remarkable comment follows the statement “how great was their disappointment; for behold, the Nephites had dug up a ridge of earth round about them, which was so high that the Lamanites could not cast their stones and their arrows at them that they might take effect, neither could they come upon them save it was by their place of entrance” (Alma 49:4), thus two things are important here:
1. The Nephites had not employed any kind of so-called “mound building” prior to this time (72 B.C.); and
2. The Nephites had not used wooden stakes or stockade fencing before this time (72 B.C.)
    This shows that the idea so promoted by these theorists to support their location and building methods (mounds, wood fencing) is without support until 72 B.C. And then, of course, we only have that in the context of defensive works to ensure the safety of their cities, fortresses and armies.
Typical Jerusalem houses during Lehi’s time. All built of stone and would have been tyhpical of Lehi’s home outside Jerusalem

    Now compare this with the nature of the Hebrews and Jerusalem Jews in general, from which Lehi, Nephi and Sam came, and carried with them an understanding of how to build buildings, houses, and public works, such as Solomon’s Temple and his Palace, and all that was built in Jerusalem from about 950 B.C. down until the time Lehi left Jerusalem. All that construction was of stone, i.e., walls, floors, upper stories, etc., with wood being used for framework, roof supports and upper floor support and surfacing (which is why stone buildings catch on fire, i.e., the wood frame and supports burn and the building in-part collapses. On the other hand, we have no evidence at all of anything in Jerusalem built during this same time period (950 B.C. to 600 B.C.) was built of wood (other than framing, roofs, etc.)
    So common sense should tell one that what Lehi’s family and the family of Ishmael (also from the area of Jerusalem where everything was built of stone) would have built in their new land such edifices as those they knew so well and had lived in and around all their lives.
Scientists’ views of the early Woodlands, Adena, and Mound Builders houses in the eastern U.S.: Top Left: Mound Builders; Top Right: Early Woodland; Bottom Left: Iroquois and Huran; Bottom Right: Adena. Does anyone really think the Nephites, after 500 years of advanced living in Jerusalem behind them would have built such flimsy wood structures? Is this consistent with the scriptural record?

    Yet, despite the common sense here, theorists, like those of Heartland, Great Lakes, Eastern U.S. and their like, insist that the Nephites built everything of wood, and point toward Helaman 3 regarding building with timber, and without it had to learn to build with cement. Once again, you can build a floor and four walls out of stone, but you cannot build a ceiling and roof out of stone, for it would have no support. Consequently, timber is required to lay in wall to wall poles (even Solomon’s Temple was built this way, using Cedar of Lebanon for the timber). Then upon the poles, wood planks are laid crosswise, and on top of that light (thin) stone, such as flagstone, etc., can be laid, or finished and polished wood planking. Without timber, you would have no window or door frames, no doors, no flooring, no roofs, no stairs, etc., all of which are required to build any home, even ones of stone. So the Nephites sent southward for timber so they could finish their homes, and in the interim used cement for their framing, and likely a type of cement (like plaster) to finish off the rough stone walls, for that is how the houses in Jerusalem and the regions round about were built in that time frame.
 Left: Typical Eastern U.S. house of Mound Builders (Hopewell) at time of Lehi; Right: Typical house at (around) Jerusalem at time of lehi—which makes the most sense?
    No houses in Jerusalem or farmhouses around the area, were built solely of wood, because it was neither plentiful in many areas, did not weather well or last long, did not provide good protection and was cold in the winter and hot in the summer with such limited insulation. Stone was always superior.
    This is something that every builder would know if presented with such factors and when stone cutting was both inexpensive and well known, and overall cost was and maintenance was very low. Today, of course, it is just the opposite, but not in B.C. times.
    Is common sense a thing of the past among Land of Promise theorists?

31 comments:

  1. "The winds and currents do not blow from Arabia to Malay."

    For half the year they do. The coastline also leads directly to the Malay Peninsula. That is why it was discovered by Arabic sailors at least 5 centuries before America.

    http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Underwater/Web_Renovation/e-Library/India/CS-Monsoon_-_90_6_-2006.pdf

    Stone walls, temples and structures are found throughout the Malay Peninsula. The first structures are found in the south of the peninsula and have been dated to the 6th century BC, just a few decades after the Nephites would have established the City of Nephi.

    In the same century another civilization was founded in the north of the peninsula by an exiled prince from the Middle East. That city was known anciently as the Walled City of Srah, a walled capital city in the center of the peninsula. The kingdom founded by this exiled prince later became known as the Kingdom of Zhenla, known today for its great stone temples, the largest in human history.

    - Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They also blow to South america where FG Williams wrote that they landed. So why even consider Malay. Also at some point the lamanites will be gathered. Are you telling me that the Mal are descendants of Manassah? We know from patriarchal blessings the Indians of North and South America are. So why even consider Malay? I don't understand that.

      Delete
    2. "They also blow to South America where FG Williams wrote that they landed."

      I guess it could be possible (but extremely dangerous) to go south along the African coast past Madagascar and then ride the southeasterlies as far as Chile. It really depends on the time of year they departed. Half the year the currents in the Arabian Sea flow heavily straight to Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. The other half of the year the kinda swirl around. You can see this visualized nicely here with an option to see how the currents change with each month. Looking at that, odds are they got blown right into Sumatra.

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/06/01/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-298.81,1.09,444

      Delete
    3. The primary reason to discount this would be the many declarations that the Americas are the Promised Land.

      Delete
    4. I agree. But America at what point in time? Is Hawaii included? How about the Philippines, which used to be an American colony. The North American continental plate actually includes a good portion of East Asia and stretches down into Japan. So technically, from a geological perspective, Japan is more North American than Chile is. Does God go by our shifting political definitions of what the American Continent includes or does He go by the continental plates that He created?

      https://nisquallyquake.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tectonic-plates.jpg

      There are too many variables and interpretations of what Moroni meant by "this continent". So instead of saying The Americas, I believe it is more useful to say the Isles of the Sea. Then we can be sure we are in line with the intention of the authors of the Book of Mormon who knew nothing of continents, but only knew they were on an isle of the sea.

      "Here let me say again, according to the Book of Mormon, many of those great islands that are found in the Indian Ocean, also in the great Pacific Sea, have been planted with colonies of Israelites. Do they not resemble each other? ...Who are they? According to the Book of Mormon, Israelites were scattered forth from time to time, and colonies planted on these islands of the ocean. In that day the isles will sing with joy; in that day the isles of the sea will wait for the Lord's law; in that day the isles of the sea will rejoice, for they will give up their inhabitants, and they will be wafted in ships to their promised land, and God will show forth his power and gather millions of people from these numerous isles of the ocean, and he will bring them back to the land of their fathers. These poor degraded Lamanites, or American Indians, that are now so far sunk beneath humanity, are to be lifted up by the power of the Almighty when the day shall come for Israel to be restored, for God will not forget them." - Orson Pratt

      Orson Pratt extended the sphere of the Lamanites all the way to the Indian Ocean. Why?

      Delete
    5. Currents flowing from the South American coast will take drift voyages directly to the island chains. I believe current research shows a trend of west-to-east migration through the South Pacific and Indian island chains. So a branch of the house of Lehi likely did spread back east during the time that mentioned Hagoth building ships.

      Also, Orson Pratt seems to be, at first, referring to Jacob's statement that the House of Israel had been scattered to the isles of the sea. Starting with this general statement, he states that the scattered colonies will be returned to THEIR promised land and that they will be brought back to the land of THEIR fathers.

      As a general statement, this is not stating that the inhabitants of all these islands are descendants of Lehi or that they will be gathered to the Promised Land of the descendants of Lehi. Instead, they will be returned to THEIR promised land, whether that is Israel, the Americas, or to other "promised lands" that we do not yet have record of.

      He then specifically called out the American Indians as a specific group that will be restored to their Promised Land.

      To sum up; there are descendants of Lehi who colonized isles of the sea. The descendants of Lehi are not the only group of Israelites to have done so.

      As a side note: Many years ago I was told by a man of research he had done for a book. He had found traces of many groups of Israelites that had been resettled by their Babylon captors. He did specify India and Asian territory across the Himalayas from there.

      Delete
    6. I'm open to westward migrations, and there is some evidence for it. We now know Amerindians made it at least as far as Easter Island and somebody was carrying sweet potatoes west through the islands. But the bulk of the evidence shows that it was Australasians, Austronesians and Polynesians that were the skilled mariners hopping across the islands. They may have carried Amerindians back with them, which would explain the similarities between SE Asian and American architecture. It would also explain the presence of what is normally considered Amerindian DNA (Haplogroup Q M3 and others) in East Asia. Many geneticists are starting to consider the possibility of ancient migrations from America to Asia. There is a lot of interesting stuff coming out in these new papers on ancient DNA. This next year should be full of surprises.

      Delete
  2. I didn't say anything about Manasseh, but since you brought it up. The only group that has been officially recognized by the Knesset as Manasseh are the Bnei Menashe in Burma/India. This is the Land Northward in the Malay Model. The Bnei Menashe are closely related to many other hill tribes that extend south into the Malay Peninsula. They live in a land they call Zoram so their official name is translated as The People of Manasseh in Zoram.

    These people are officially recognized Israelites from the Tribe of Manasseh and are returning en masse to Israel. That's why we should at least consider Malay and Southeast Asia, regardless of where the Book of Mormon took place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider them for what? Especially if you are stating that the Book of Mormon narrative took place elsewhere?

      There is nothing in Del's (or any other) theory that would preclude a population of Israelite descent from being in that area. It isn't that far (though it is rugged terrain) from the outer limits of the Babylon Empire. Theorizing that this population must be the remnants of the BoM lands is an extremely difficult stretch, given the statements by prophets that the BoM Promised Land is the Americas.

      Delete
    2. Let me explain why I am so interested in Del's model. I think you'll see why I think it is important to include SE Asia in the discussion about Promised Lands.

      A few years a massive sampling of DNA was done in Ecuador. Most of the Y (paternal) results came out Q, as expected. But a significant amount of haplogroup C turned up, completely unexpectedly. This branch of C is not found in North or Central America and is most common in East Asia among the Mongols and other tribes stretching down into the Malay Peninsula. The researchers could only conclude that contact was made between Asia and Ecuador around 6000 years ago. This conclusion was reinforced by the discovery of pottery in Ecuador that resembles Asian pottery.

      https://www.evernote.com/shard/s8/sh/5152e097-c8e8-4eb1-91e3-d2cd529f921b/d6642414d34a0fbb

      OK, interesting, but what does it have to do with Nephites? Well, just this week new papers have come out showing a very close connection between Scythians/Samartians and east Asians during the Bronze Age. The DNA of these ancient westerners is very similar to the DNA found in Ecuador and other parts of the Americas. The eastern Scythian branches are clustering closer to Amerindians than they are even to other Asians. These "Scythians" (also known anciently as Hephatalites or Nephtalites) are, of course, admixed with Iranian and other Indo-European groups from the west.

      https://www.evernote.com/l/AAi_xlsGDvlI2YOMh48hFPDxGersx3Wul8o

      So there is a lot to discuss, and consider.

      Delete
  3. That all might be true that the Jews recognize them as Manassah, but is that true? I rather doubt it. I don't see any evidence at all that they are where as we know that the Indians of North and America are. So whylook anywhere else? Also the winds and currents do flow to South America. The archeological evidence is overwhelming in favor of it.

    Is there any evidence of exceedingly high mountains in Malay? Or that they were raised up 2k years ago? My guess is there is none because that isn't where they landed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, but the evidence to support their claims was obviously strong enough to convince many Israeli Jews that they are. The only similar case I've heard of in the Americas was in Peru when the Knesset allowed Peruvian descendants of Sephardi Jews to who had migrated there to farm rubber to return to Israel.

      Yes, there are mountains on the Malay Peninsula. The Bnei Menashe group I mentioned above has a legend of a great transformation that took place in 35 AD after a period of intense darkness. During this period the dead returned to visit them and fires could not be lit. So there is at least an oral history of a massive transformation happening in the right time. According to the geologic record there was also a large earthquake at this time (2000 years ago) along the Marui Fault which runs through the area I have identified as Bountiful.

      Delete
  4. I guess unknown you'll have to start your own blog and make the case for Malay. I just look at the map and found some problems with it. For one thing it's not an Island. It doesn't head North-south direction. The narrow neck is very long. And the most important part is it isn't part of the promised land which has always been known to be North and South America. So with all that I have to say that I myself wouldn't consider it at all. South America fits everything just fine so I'll stick with it. And since FG Williams said that is where they landed that is what I believe. Tell me if you start a blog because it would be fun to see your arguments for it and see if they can stand scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also Hagoth cannot sail North any distance from Malay.

      Delete
    2. Yes, my intention isn't to use Del's blog as a platform for my ideas. I'm posting here in response to what are common misunderstandings about the Malay model. But maybe someday I'll start a blog to accomplish this.

      My guess is you are looking at the maps for Ralph Olsen's model. The narrow neck was too long in his as he placed Zarahemla and Sidon down in Malaysia where it didn't fit the archeology and geology. I've moved everything up into Burma and Thailand where it fits the history and geography. Here are the maps:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqEBrkf71Ws

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s-eyXh8tWU

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHnZIY4wAlk

      The peninsula was known anciently as an island and there is some evidence that it actually was separated from the mainland around. It is almost certain that the Malay Peninsula is the Island of the Blessed referred to in early Judeo-Christian texts that became the promised land of the Rechabites (Kenites) who left Jerusalem around 600 BC. That alone makes Malay a very likely candidate for the Lehite promised land. At least one that we should not so easily dismiss.

      Delete
    3. Trade from the Peninsula went north up into Burma and Bengal, known anciently as Rahma and Moron. The name Moron still lives on in the country of Myanmar. The Burmese pronounce their R's as Y's so Myanmar is really Mranmar, home of the Mran and Mron people. Of course the Land Northward in the Book of Mormon was Moron.

      The main trading port was near a long inlet that divides the land right at the base of the narrowest part of the peninsula. Trade was in wood and dates back to the correct time period.

      Delete
    4. Quite some time ago on this blog, Del has a post or posts referring to many sites around the Indian Ocean that had names that appeared to be from the Book of Mormon.

      He did a good job of covering the sources of the similar sounding names.

      A quick summary is that while the end result is a similar sounding name, the entomology of those words are entirely separate from a Book of Mormon origin.

      There are many posts on this site that cover the Malay location extensively. Many of your points have already be refuted.

      Delete
  5. I prefer Occam's Razor when explaining different theories about the Book of Mormon. Malay misses the mark on so many levels. Not even the same continent. Heartland is also way off though you could head west and have a few points. No sea east however no matter how you slice it.

    Meso is interesting but the orientation is off. That could be explained away as Mexico has weird directions. Chiapas is described as being south of Oaxaca and Acapulco as southwest of Mexico City though it is nearly due south. But even so too much explaining.

    Geological evidence points to the Otinoco, the Amazon, and the Parana river basins as being united inland seas with Brazil and Guyana as seperated cratons from the Andes region.

    Darien was still transitable though by boat off to the side.

    The more I see South America the more I am convinced it is the place though I do have disagreements with Del's map.

    Zarahemla is way too close to the ocean and not close enough to the Sidon. Besides that I think you did a pretty good job.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I prefer Occam's Razor when explaining different theories about the Book of Mormon. Malay misses the mark on so many levels. Not even the same continent. Heartland is also way off though you could head west and have a few points. No sea east however no matter how you slice it.

    Meso is interesting but the orientation is off. That could be explained away as Mexico has weird directions. Chiapas is described as being south of Oaxaca and Acapulco as southwest of Mexico City though it is nearly due south. But even so too much explaining.

    Geological evidence points to the Otinoco, the Amazon, and the Parana river basins as being united inland seas with Brazil and Guyana as seperated cratons from the Andes region.

    Darien was still transitable though by boat off to the side.

    The more I see South America the more I am convinced it is the place though I do have disagreements with Del's map.

    Zarahemla is way too close to the ocean and not close enough to the Sidon. Besides that I think you did a pretty good job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown: You originally sent me a reference site article by a couple of India authors in a Journal. It has taken a while for me to go through that lengthy article and the references since you did not refer to any one item. I found it so full of errors or misleading ideas, i.e., the article was not about what you used it to support your ideas of sailing eastward from Arabia to Indonesia (Malay), but actually about sailing in the Bay of Bengal. Even these two authors in a scientific journal no less, used inaccurate information according to the hundreds of other scientific evaluations of the Indian Ocean we have quoted from in here for the past several years. The point is, you are mistaken as to your assumptions about both the article as a reference to your point and also your point overall. Since my response to you would include maps and diagrams (some from the article you referenced) and also from other sources, I will respond to you in a future post, not here in this comments section, plus the fact that my response cannot be put into a brief, simple comment like we use in this comments section.
    May I respectfully request of you in responding in our blog that when you use a reference, do not just give an internet site—refer to a specific point and location in your reference. When you reference an entire article of several pages, the time involved in trying to find what it is you are referencing is usually not worth the effort. A scholarly work requires either a reference point (quoted statement) or a page number, or specific map, etc. It also might be of value to you in the future to reference more standard works of value. The Journal you referenced Current Science, is not highly thought of and almost never cited in other publications as I’ve pointed out with statistics in my response, which should appear here in about ten days or so under the heading “Monsoons and Wind and Ocean Currents.” You also might want to keep in mind that if one looks long enough one can find a reference on just about any point under the sun. There are always people who will write about things as though they now what they are talking about and find a source that will print it, but more importantly, when using a reference, it is important (very, very important) to double-check their references, and see what the original article had to say. You should have done this, as I did, of the article you referenced—you would have found that in many cases the original article had a totally different meaning than the one you used it for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You made the claim that winds and currents do not blow from Arabia to the Malay Archipelago. I was only saying that they do for half the year. There is a graphic in the article that shows this. My other claim was that throughout history sailors from the Middle East have followed the coastline to Malay. There are several other graphics in the article showing this, and you have noted this several times on your blog. So I'm not sure where the "totally different meaning" is, and what references I'd need to double check. Regarding currents, this link I shared earlier is very useful:

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/06/01/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-298.81,1.09,444

      You can view by the different months and see how the currents and winds shift. It speaks for itself and I don't really have any more comments beyond just looking at the data.

      Delete
  8. Unknown: It is interesting how often people use information without having any idea what it actually means. You use the word or name “Moron” as though it is unique or particularly important more or less to the area of Burma and Bengal; however, the word or name Moron is a very common name used throughout the world. It is not only a very common name in the Philippines, it “is quite popular family name mostly used in Spain while Bolivia (South America) is ahead in terms of density—around 54,335 people have been found who have Moron as their family name. Moron is used widely across the globe.” The name Moron is found in many countries with a very high frequency where thousands of people bear the name Moron: Spain, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, France and Philippines (note: in Andean South America, the name has the highest concentration of 32,648 people—compare to Indonesia (497), Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, Malay (0). What does that prove or suggest? Nothing. But it does show that your comment is meaningless, yet very misleading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My name is Jay. I noted a couple of times that for some reason my name doesn't appear even though I am logged in.

      Sorry, where did I say the name Moron was unique or particular to Burma or Bengal? Don't worry, I am not one to use a matching toponym as evidence of anything. Its far too easy to find them here and there. But we should expect to find some linguistic traces in Book of Mormon locations. Just because there are a lot of Morons in the world doesn't mean that finding one in the right place isn't statistically significant. The occurrence of matching toponyms isn't very interesting, but finding multiple matching toponyms in the right place sure is. The land just north of the Malay Peninsula has been known historically as Moron, Rahma, Kamara and Zhenla. But you're correct It could be meaningless.

      Not sure where you got your numbers for the number of "Morons" in Thailand/Malay. The first great warrior king on the peninsula was named Maron or Maroni. So you can add 1 to the list.

      Delete
  9. Unknown: You wrote: “We now know Amerindians made it at least as far as Easter Island.” While “Amerindian” is a scholarly word, it has a very specific meaning, i.e., “it is another term for American Indian, used chiefly in anthropological and linguistic contexts.” Therefore, it cannot be said Amerindians made it to Easter Island (Rapu Nui). Nobody knows for certain where they came from, their origin, or ancestry—but to say they evolved from the American Indian is an unprovable stretch. Early European visitors from Holland in 1722 to Easter Island (original name is claimed to be “e pito o te henua,”roughly equivalent to “Land’s End” in English, but we do not even know that for certain; others claim it was “Te pito o te kainga a Hau Maka meaning: "The little piece of land of Hau Maka") found only about two to three thousand inhabitants there (by 1877 there were just 111), who were not the ones who built the stone walls, monuments, stone “moai” statues, etc., but a later people, who claimed their ancestors came “from the mainland,” which has been interpreted to mean South America. It is believed they settled somewhere between 700 and 1100 A.D. Today, of a population of just under 6,000, some 60% claim to be descendants of the aboriginal Rapa Nui, but that is neither proven or provable. The fact that they are called Polynesians is more from the scientific belief that they came from Gambier Islands 1600 miles away or the Marquesas Islands, 2000 miles away to the west) than any real knowledge or consideration or acceptance of movement from the west to the east. The point is, in throwing out terms like “we now know” is a foolhardy thing to do since we know so little about anything other than what is written in the Book of Mormon. That these people might have inhabited the islands from traveling in Hagoth’s ships is a possibility but not provable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We now know that Amerindians reached as far as Easter Island.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes

      Del, I am not trying to have a Book of Mormon geography war with you. I find your model to be very interesting and would like to have constructive dialogue. I'm not going to get into a tit for tat, or a my model is better than your model battle royale. I think you can see some interesting things in the model I have shared, just as I have seen interesting things in yours as I have followed your blog for many years.

      Delete
  10. First of all, when you say the area just north of Malay (Kra) Peninsula, that could be the old Burma area (the current southernmost tip of southeastern Myanmar) on the Peninsula, referred to as Sudhammavadi or Mon Country (which means the land or area of gold), what is Lower Burma – the names of this area are almost all derived from Suvarnabhumi, lying in the western part of the Menam River, and whose names are all associated with gold or Suvarna. As an example, the old Pegu area, (now Bago), is on the small extension of land into the Gulf of Martaban peninsula (north of the Andaman Sea) to the west of the main peninsula. Nowhere in this entire area is found the names you mention, other than: iun the upper Malay, the name Ramah you use is traceable to Arabic as a female name, or name of a mosque, but not to Malay. The name Zhenla, more correctly Chenla, from Chinese ChĂ¢n Lạp) is the Chinese designation for the successor polity of the Kingdom of Funan (6th to 9th century A.D.), which proceeded the Khmer Empire and covered the entire upper part of the Peninsula (referred to as th southern point of Asia) and to the east and west into southern Cambodia and southern Burma (Myanmar). The name was still used in the 13th century by the Chinese envoy and author Zhou Daguan. However, modern historiography applies the name exclusively to the period from the late 6th to the early ninth century (Ian Glover, Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History, Psychology Press, 2004).
    It is dubious if "Chenla" ever existed as a unitary kingdom or if this is a misconception by Chinese chroniclists. Most modern historians assert that "Chenla" was in fact just a series of loose and temporary confederations of principalities. Below that is Malay, which was traditionally called Tanah Melayu, derived from Tanah (land) and Melayu (Malays) and means “the Malay land.” At one time it was under the dominance of the Sultan of Melaka, Mahmud Shah, in the 1600s. Prior to being called Melaka, the Malay penninsula was referred to as Kra, or according to several Indian scholars, the word Malayadvipa ("mountain-insular continent"), mentioned in the ancient Indian text, Vayu Purana, may refer to the Malay peninsula.
    As for Karmara, it was the original name of Kaveripattinam, an area in southern India, not in the area you say. The point is, Jay, you make these unsubstantiated statements, using no references or referrals, and when we try to check it out, it takes literally hours trying to find what it is you are talking about. It sounds like you are just parroting what you have read from Olsen or whoever, since it is not verifiable. If you want to be taken seriously as a scholar or knowledgeable about what you write, then you need to be specific and refer information for those who want to know where information originated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jay: The article you referenced, since you gave the entire article once again and not a specific point within it, leads to a general response. The article starts out: “Polynesians from Easter Island and natives of South America met and mingled long before Europeans voyaged the Pacific, according to a new genetic study of living Easter Islanders. In this week’s issue of Current Biology, researchers argue that the genes point to contact between Native Americans and Easter Islanders before 1500 C.E., 3 centuries after Polynesians settled the island also known as Rapa Nui.”
    This article is by Andrew Lawler and is entitled “Epic pre-Columbian voyage suggested by genes,” Oct. 23, 2014. Lawler is a contributing correspondent to Science who writes frequently about archaeology, and in addition, he is a freelance writer who has written more than a thousand articles for a dozen different magazines on topics ranging from asteroids to zebrafish. The magazine has a 33.61 Impact Factor which makes it a highly respected source of material. Lawler’s professional credentials are not known, but his success as a write is highly viewed, with numerous awards and written articles.
    The point to consider is simply this, is he a writer, or an archaeologist (someone who knows archaeology). The reason for this is that Lawler in his article simply spouts information he has seen or read somewhere else, like a researcher, and not a “dig in the ground” archaeologist. This does not disqualify him, but he does not give reference to where the information he writes comes from, i.e., Polynesians settling Easter Island. That is a belief held by numerous professionals in the field, but there is absolutely no credibility to it, i.e., the original settlers of the island. Because Easter Island is part of the so-called Polynesia (which only means “multiple or many islands”) and while some DNA work has been done there, certainly not enough to claim (as mainstream professionals do), that all Polynesia has been settled by a single group of people and their descendants.
    As an example, in his article he states: “In the genomes of 27 living Rapa Nui islanders, the team found dashes of European and Native American genetic patterns. The European genetic material made up 16% of the genomes; it was relatively intact and was unevenly spread among the Rapa Nui population, suggesting that genetic recombination, which breaks up segments of DNA, has not been at work for long. Europeans may have introduced their genes in the 19th century, when they settled on the island. Native American DNA accounted for about 8% of the genomes.
    First of all, there are 5,761 people living on Easter Island, 27 makes up a little less than ½ of 1%. This is in no way conclusive of anything. So why even write about it? The article goes on to say: “Our studies strongly suggest that Native Americans most probably arrived [on Rapa Nui] shortly after the Polynesians…”
    Notice the “most probably” because it is unknown, and simply speculation. And as for the spread of sweet potatoes, no one in the field of botany has ever stated anything other than what is said here, i.e., the sweet potato was indigenous to South America and was taken from there westward into the Pacific Islands. The “clarification” of the article states: “Erik Thorsby is described as supporting the hypothesis that Native Americans voyaged on their own to Easter Island. Thorsby, like most scientists, believes it much more likely that Polynesians brought Native Americans to the island.”
    The problem is, Jay, you are simply quoting other people’s work evidently without understanding what they are saying. Lawler is throwing out two opposite views in his short article which, in the long run, really says nothing at all. So again, what is the point?
    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  12. (continuing) Now, getting back to my original comment, to which you were responding, was my disagreement that Amerindians settled on Easter Island, which was your quote and statement in an earlier comment on our blog. My contention and the reason for my comment is that Amerindians would not have done that from the mainland of South America—it would have been done by Nephites, whose DNA and all traces of it ended in 385 A.D. So if Nephite settled Easter Island, there would be no trace to South America. If Lamanites (Indians) settled there, we have no suggestion anywhere that Lamanites traveled anywhere so that cannot be a point to be made. And the article you referenced does not mention Amerindians at all!!! So what was your point?
    My point was that “Unknown: You wrote: “We now know Amerindians made it at least as far as Easter Island.” Your article had nothing to do with that, referring to “Native Americans,” which is a totally different meaning than Amerindians, which is “another term for American Indian.”
    The problem is, Jay, this is the result of your using someone else’s words in an article to convey a meaning that is not clear because you are not stating it in your own words. After all, quoting one person is rarely an acceptable scholarly approach, since any one person can have a singular opinion that is far from correct.
    P.S. If I thought this was a Book of Mormon war, I would never have responded to your comments. I believe in constructive debate or discussion, but not in confrontation on this. I accept the Book of Mormon scriptural record in its entirety exactly as it is written with the simplest explanation possible. My answers to you are trying to get you to understand that quoting other people is of no value in such a discussion. Other people, professions, mainstream, or oddball references have their place, but not as a focal point. The scriptures are the focal point.
    Your question, “where did I say the name Moron was unique or particular to Burma or Bengal?” My response is that you suggested it as either originating or at least existing with importance in that area, otherwise my mention it at all? So I wrote in response to your earlier comment: “Unknown: It is interesting how often people use information without having any idea what it actually means. You use the word or name “Moron” as though it is unique or particularly important more or less to the area of Burma and Bengal.” My response was to show that it was not only not unique, but not even common there—its origination seems to have been in Spain, etc. Despite this, you again pointed out that: “The land just north of the Malay Peninsula has been known historically as Moron, Rahma, Kamara and Zhenla.” My question is, so what? If you don’t have a point to make with that, the reference is meaningless. We can find all sorts of similar comments. At one time we went all through this part of the world with all the suggested similarities in names someone was trying to use to prove the presence of Lehi and the Nephites. What we posted was a etymology of each word in each location to show where it came from and had nothing to do with Lehi, etc. But the thoughts still continue by people who don’t the history of the word in that area think it has reference to something else when it does not.
    We have a policy in this blog of answer all questions and comments, no matter how trivial or unimportant or erroneous. If you comment, we will take the time to respond. If I thought this was a Book of Mormon war, I would never have responded to your comments other than one brief comment. I believe in constructive discussion, but not in confrontation on this. I accept the Book of Mormon scriptural record in its entirety exactly as it is written with the simplest explanation possible. My answers to you are trying to get you to understand that quoting other people is of no value in such a discussion. Other people, professions, mainstream, or oddball references have their place, but not as a focal point. The scriptures are the focal point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jay: There are instances of one (1) in the following areas of Indonesia: Indonesia 22,462, Philippines 10,521, Cambodia 1, Pakistan 1, Hong Kong 1. These are present day figures, which was the point of the discussion. What names existed when and in what numbers before modern times is impossible to know other than an isolated case here or there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jay: As I wrote in here earlier, the articles that will appear on this blog regarding your initial inquiry and the article you sent, is now completed and will appear in approximately seven days when two series that are already in the queue are out and published--that was the earliest I could insert them into the publishing schedule. If you have further questions, why not wait until that is completed, then we'll be up to date.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jay: You wrote: "You made the claim that winds and currents do not blow from Arabia to the Malay Archipelago. I was only saying that they do for half the year. There is a graphic in the article that shows this"
    Actually, what you claim is a general term “to the east,” but what is often missed in these graphics and discussions unless you read carefully, and understand it thoroughly, is that the monsoon winds and currents that blow eastward for six months actually do not blow into the Indonesia archipelago but up into the Bay of Bengal and inland, since these winds and currents blow out of the southwest and into the northeast for six months and reverse themselves, blowing out of the northeast and into the southwest, which is why they are called the Northeast Monsoon and the Southwest Monsoon—they do not blow directly east and west which would be required if they blew into Indonesia. Far too often writers speak of these things in general terms and not the specifics of exactness that is involved. In a few more days, our 4-part series on these monsoons will appear as we have stated earlier in answer to your initial comments and article.

    ReplyDelete