Smithsonian Magazine posted an interesting article yesterday on how Native American mounds in the Midwest were explained by white settlers, historians, and anthropologists.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/white-settlers-buried-truth-about-midwests-mysterious-mound-cities-180968246/

In particular, this passage says a lot about the origins of the Book of Mormon:

"The splendor of the mounds was visible to the first white people who described them. But they thought that the American Indian known to early white settlers could not have built any of the great earthworks that dotted the midcontinent. So the question then became: Who built the mounds?

Early archaeologists working to answer the question of who built the mounds attributed them to the Toltecs, Vikings, Welshmen, Hindus, and many others. It seemed that any group—other than the American Indian—could serve as the likely architects of the great earthworks. The impact of this narrative led to some of early America’s most rigorous archaeology, as the quest to determine where these mounds came from became salacious conversation pieces for America’s middle and upper classes. The Ohio earthworks, such as Newark Earthworks, a National Historic Landmark located just outside Newark, OH, for example, were thought by John Fitch (builder of America’s first steam-powered boat in 1785) to be military-style fortifications. This contributed to the notion that, prior to the Native American, highly skilled warriors of unknown origin had populated the North American continent."

It is out of this culture that Joseph Smith fabricated his book, a fantastic tale of a glorious and long-dead civilization obviously superior to his contemporary Native Americans, as well as his other ramblings, like the story of Zelph.

Yet, Mormons today believe it's all true. And not only that, they can read articles like this Smithsonian piece and never make the connection between the pervasive beliefs of Joseph Smith's contemporaries--beliefs discredited, as the article notes, 100 years ago--and the stories presented as historical "fact" in the Book of Mormon.

To anyone with half a brain, it isn't hard to crawl over, under, or around the Book of Mormon after all.

Yes, the mound-builders myth is the basis for the setting of the
Book of Mormon. If you make the mound-builders Hebrews and have
them annihilated by the dark-skinned Indians then this scenario
pretty much sums up the Book of Mormon setting:


"The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving
in this continent with some knowledge of the arts of civilized
life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the
best of game, inviting them to the chase; most of them fell
into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted
from each other, lost each other, and formed separate tribes.
Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and
were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people
associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts;
and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted
relics of civilization discovered in the west and south, were
furnished. But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of
time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more
civilized brethren. And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence
would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all
were left in an “outcast” savage state. This accounts for
their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of
navigation, and of the use of iron. And such a loss can no
more operate against their being of the ten tribes, than
against their being of any other origin. Yea, we cannot so
well account for their evident degeneracy in any other way, as
that it took place under a vindictive Providence, as has been
noted, to accomplish divine judgments denounced against the
idolatrous ten tribes of Israel.

"It is highly probable that the more civilized part of the
tribes of Israel, after they settled in America, became wholly
separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their
brethren; that the latter lost the knowledge of their having
descended from the same family with themselves; that the more
civilized part continued for many centuries; that tremendous
wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren,
till the former became extinct."

--Ethan Smith, "View of the Hebrews" 2nd edition, 1825,
Poultney Vermont, P. 130.


This is what people were thinking in the time and place that
produced the Book of Mormon.

Holy crap! I think Ethan Smith is on to something!!!

Absent any evidence to the contrary, it could be the explanation for how the Indians initially beat the Cowboys!

But baseball teams don't play football teams.

Redskins then...

Well, okay. . .

"This contributed to the notion that, prior to the Native American, highly skilled warriors of unknown origin had populated the North American continent."
________________________________________________________

People may finally be realizing that just because some 'stone age people' occupy areas with impressive buildings, etc. ----- these stone age people may not be 'responsible' for these buildings, etc., and just 'lost the technology'!!!!

Imagine, some 'advanced earlier' people/civilizations may have existed!

<<People may finally be realizing that just because some 'stone age people' occupy areas with impressive buildings, etc. ----- these stone age people may not be 'responsible' for these buildings, etc., and just 'lost the technology'!!!!

Imagine, some 'advanced earlier' people/civilizations may have existed!>>

I suppose if somebody is ignorant of all the advances in knowledge concerning prehistoric America that have been made in the past couple of hundred years, they may indeed "imagine" that to be the case.

Obviously, you disagree with OP article!

I believe this occurred across the globe now it looks like more archeologists are getting the same idea.

Not surprisingly, you did not read the article.

If you had, you would realize it says the opposite of what you claim. To wit, "During the last 100 years, extensive archaeological research has changed our understanding of the mounds. They are no longer viewed as isolated monuments created by a mysterious race. Instead, the mounds of North America have been proven to be constructions by Native American peoples. . ."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not surprisingly, you did not read the article.
>
> If you had, you would realize it says the opposite
> of what you claim. To wit, "During the last 100
> years, extensive archaeological research has
> changed our understanding of the mounds. They are
> no longer viewed as isolated monuments created by
> a mysterious race. Instead, the mounds of North
> America have been proven to be constructions by
> Native American peoples. . ."

When William Bartram and others recorded local Native American narratives of the mounds, they seemingly corroborated these mythical origins of the mounds. According to Bartram’s early journals (Travels, published in 1928) the Creek and the Cherokee who lived around mounds attributed their construction to “the ancients, many ages prior to their arrival and possessing of this country.”
______________________________________________

I am not arguing against 'Native American Peoples' ----- the earlier people could also be described as 'Native American People'!

They seem to also talk a lot of 'only' the mounds versus the pyramids and very technologically advanced construction in Peru and other So. American sites.

Yet in these instances the 'advanced building and skill' seemed to stop and disappear for some reason!

An example of 'lost' Peruvian 'building skills' is shown here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66x9VLwZaDQ



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2018 08:30PM by spiritist.

William Bartram's Travels was published in 1791. He died in 1823. Your date of 1928 is very misleading because it is 137 years after Bartram's book was first published.

The mounds had been built by the ancestors of the Indians. See:

Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1890-'91
https://archive.org/details/bureauofethnology00thomrich

I agree with you!

I got that 'quote' from OP article ------ I didn't make it up!

Thanks for your research!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2018 08:35PM by spiritist.

Not sure what position you are taking now. Seemed like you were trying to say that a more ancient people unrelated to the living American Indians built those mounds. Do you agree with me that the builders were simply the ancestors of the living American Indian people?

The link to YouTube that you gave leads to Brien Foerster, a crank.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2018 08:44PM by mikemitchell.

mikemitchell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what position you are taking now. Seemed
> like you were trying to say that a more ancient
> people unrelated to the living American Indians
> built those mounds. Do you agree with me that the
> builders were simply the ancestors of the living
> American Indian people?
>
> The link to YouTube that you gave leads to Brien
> Foerster, a crank.

----------------------------------------------------------

I will not argue with that position. Since I do not have any evidence that they were unrelated I will not go there. I am comfortable with the argument that that they were possibly or very likely 'ancestors' of living American Indians. However, that 'knowledge' in some cases seems to have been 'lost' and not passed down. I can't overlook that fact.

The person in the Utube video may be a 'crank' but the difference in 'building technology' is 'real' and in my opinion not adequately explained!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 12:27AM by spiritist.

You say you will not argue my position, but seems you did when you said:

"People may finally be realizing that just because some 'stone age people' occupy areas with impressive buildings, etc. ----- these stone age people may not be 'responsible' for these buildings, etc., and just 'lost the technology'!!!!

Imagine, some 'advanced earlier' people/civilizations may have existed!"

I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you are saying. The consensus of mainstream science and archaeology is that the American Indians themselves were responsible for the mounds and there was no other ancient people from somewhere else who came and did it. Do you agree with the consensus of the scholars or are you siding with the crackpots?

The consensus of mainstream science and archaeology is that the American Indians themselves were responsible for the mounds and there was no other ancient people from somewhere else who came and did it.
_________________________________________________________

I am not arguing that 'ancestors' of the Indians were not responsible for the construction. I don't have any 'evidence' at this time to dispute that. However, they appear 'more advanced' in many areas that the 'latest/later inhabitants'.

It is the 'when' and what 'generation' was responsible that I believe is the question concerning many structures around the world given the 'evidence' we have now.

The consensus of mainstream science and archaeology is that the American Indians themselves were responsible for the mounds and there was no other ancient people from somewhere else who came and did it.
_________________________________________________________

"I am not arguing that 'ancestors' of the Indians were not responsible for the construction. I don't have any 'evidence' at this time to dispute that."

OK, it seems that you might not agree with the consensus of the scholars but you don't have evidence to dispute the consensus. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

"However, they appear 'more advanced' in many areas that the 'latest/later inhabitants'."

What do you mean by the "latest/later inhabitants"? It is fairly well established through archaeology and genomics who lived where and when and their direct connections to the living American Indians who resided in those regions of the mounds prior to forced relocations and disruptions from colonization and settlers.

"It is the 'when' and what 'generation' was responsible that I believe is the question concerning many structures around the world given the 'evidence' we have now."

This post was about the mounds in North America, don't know why you have brought in other structures around the world. There really is no question concerning the when and "what generation", at least not with the mainstream consensus concerning the North American mounds. The evidence that has formed that consensus is quite clear and extensive.

There are many crackpot and crank ideas being promoted. Most that I run across deal with attempts to claim evidence for the Book of Mormon but I'm aware of non-Mormon agendas for that too, usually involving ancient aliens, Atlantis, giants and such things.

<<Yet in these instances the 'advanced building and skill' seemed to stop and disappear for some reason!>>

The reasons are well known. For the Inca and Aztecs the building stopped because the Spanish killed them. For the mound builders the building stopped because European diseases annihilated them. Knowledge is good. Ignoring it is stupid.

richardthebad (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <>
>
> The reasons are well known. For the Inca and
> Aztecs the building stopped because the Spanish
> killed them. For the mound builders the building
> stopped because European diseases annihilated
> them. Knowledge is good. Ignoring it is stupid.
______________________________________________________________

Then why 'ignore' the video evidence that there was significantly different technology involved in some 'Inca/Aztec' building in the very same area, on the very same structure?

I totally agree, Ignoring 'facts' is 'stupid'!

Do you really believe the 'Native Americans' in North and South America were 'all killed/annihilated'????? It may pay to 'read' a book once in awhile versus believe in 'fairy tales' such as the BoM where all the Nephites were killed!!!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 12:24AM by spiritist.

Do you realize, spiritist, that Richard is a professional archaeologist? He is the only person on this website qualified to comment on the topic.

You think he should "read" a book? He probably writes them.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you realize, spiritist, that Richard is a
> professional archaeologist? He is the only person
> on this website qualified to comment on the
> topic.
>
> You think he should "read" a book? He probably
> writes them.

----------------------------

If he is who you claim he should learn 'English' before he attempts to 'communicate' in English.

Annihilate in my dictionary means to totally destroy.

<<Annihilate in my dictionary means to totally destroy>>

Maybe you need another dictionary. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annihilate

Please note definitions 1.b and c.

1 a : to cause to cease to exist : to do away with entirely so that nothing remains

b : to destroy a considerable part of ·Bombs annihilated the city.
·The enemy troops were annihilated.

c : to defeat overwhelmingly : rout ·annihilated the visitors 56–0

He even has the hat and whip. Don't argue with him !

But the hat is a derby and the whip is made of fur. Does that still count?

<<Do you really believe the 'Native Americans' in North and South America were 'all killed/annihilated'????? >>

"All"?? I never made such an assertion, as is obvious. However, current estimates are that between 75-90% of the indigenous population died from disease and genocide. I would also point out that the DNA evidence from burials associated with these structures proves that they were the ancestors of the current inhabitants of those areas.

richardthebad (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <>
>
> "All"?? I never made such an assertion, as is
> obvious. However, current estimates are that
> between 75-90% of the indigenous population died
> from disease and genocide. I would also point out
> that the DNA evidence from burials associated with
> these structures proves that they were the
> ancestors of the current inhabitants of those
> areas.
__________________________________________

A percentage less than 100% isn't annihilation!! Please learn how to use a dictionary!

When one sticks with the 'facts' instead of 'drama king' words that have significant and various meanings one will get more respect!!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 12:08PM by spiritist.

You should be embarrassed.

You are engaged in a discussion with an expert in a field about which you know virtually nothing, someone with a far more nuanced understanding of language than you. You accuse that man of "drama" in sentences littered with exclamation points, that manifestation of adolescent emotion.

If you put your ego aside for a moment, you might learn something about a topic you purport to find interesting.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You should be embarrassed.
>
> You are engaged in a discussion with an expert in
> a field about which you know virtually nothing,
> someone with a far more nuanced understanding of
> language than you. You accuse that man of "drama"
> in sentences littered with exclamation points,
> that manifestation of adolescent emotion.
>
> If you put your ego aside for a moment, you might
> learn something about a topic you purport to find
> interesting.
____________________________________________________________

You really need to get a life! You do constantly show your knowledge and frankly I am not impressed!!!

I have advanced degrees and have met many 'so called' scholars! I have worked with these 'scholars' on many different projects.

Some have truly impressed me. Many not so much. They do that by what they say and do not because they have a degree and should know something based on that! So far I am not very impressed!!!

Your 'god-like science person' should be very capable of speaking for himself.

You have no idea what I know in this area! You have no idea of the interest I have in this area! You have no idea what I have found or what I have access to in this area.

Yes, I believe in superior ancient 'human' civilizations and alien civilizations that lived/visited here and nearby. However, in the case of the Mounds and many other sites I have no evidence that either of those were involved so I don't claim that. And where I do have some evidence I have no evidence that would say 'Native Americans/whatever location' did not assist in any buildings. However, some above seemed like they would just not accept that and try to 'argue' when there is nothing or little to 'argue' about.

On the mounds I am going basically with the 'consensus' based on the study and evidence I currently have. I assume both the 'experts' that were trying to 'argue' agree! But, I am not sure based on how they 'communicate' and how little they care for common word 'definitions'!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 06:28PM by spiritist.

"Yes, I believe in superior ancient 'human' civilizations and alien civilizations that lived/visited here and nearby. However, in the case of the Mounds and many other sites I have no evidence that either of those were involved so I don't claim that. And where I do have some evidence I have no evidence that would say 'Native Americans/whatever location' did not assist in any buildings. However, some above seemed like they would just not accept that and try to 'argue' when there is nothing or little to 'argue' about."

Your right, I will not just not accept ancient aliens, atlanteans or whatever "advanced civilization" some nutcase proposes. It isn't a matter of trying to argue, it is a problem with screwball ideas just like I dealt with in Mormonism. Arguing isn't what is going on here, it is called challenging the bullshit and yes, it is something to confront or as you say "argue about". Minimizing it to "there is nothing or little to argue about" doesn't get you off the hook for preaching your crap with me.

Your implication that American Indians assisted rather than did it themselves robs them of their own accomplishments and just like the Book of Mormon, tries to assign their history to someone else's.

You claim to have advanced degrees, well I have no doubt that you do not have a doctorate in archaeology or genomics nor have you done any actual fieldwork as a research professor with one of those two degrees.

Suffice to say, I am not impressed by your posts. I mean, really, having been fed von Daniken's trash by my own father, the lost continent of Mu, etc. I have had a lifetime of this kind of crap thrown at me, often coupled in with Mormonism's twisted take. I really don't have much patience for it anymore, so just accept that when you put it out here, it will be challenged. If you think that is arguing I suggest you either get a thicker skin or stop babbling your bullshit.

"Suffice to say, I am not impressed by your posts. I mean, really, having been fed von Daniken's trash by my own father, the lost continent of Mu, etc. I have had a lifetime of this kind of crap thrown at me, often coupled in with Mormonism's twisted take. I really don't have much patience for it anymore, so just accept that when you put it out here, it will be challenged. If you think that is arguing I suggest you either get a thicker skin or stop babbling your bullshit."
__________________________________________________________

I said I agreed with the 'consensus' on the Mounds ----- no aliens and no superior race other than the Native Americans. But no that's not good enough for someone so full of hate for any new ideas and a strong desire to show off whatever they 'claim' to have!

You will continue to argue when there is nothing to argue about just to push 'theories you accept as knowledge(similar to the Bom)' and show your complete lack of 'openness' to anything someone without letters behind their name comes up with!

I show you pictorial 'facts' and you challenge the 'person' showing the pictures. Then you challenge me on why extending the discussion to So. America. Never once did you address the 'facts' ----- of course why would a 'scholar' do that when they have no clue!

I accept you have no clue so we can move on!

What a waste of time!!!!!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 10:22AM by spiritist.

"I said I agreed with the 'consensus' on the Mounds ----- no aliens and no superior race other than the Native Americans."

No, that is not how you said it. Your own words were "I have no evidence that would say 'Native Americans/whatever location' did not assist in any buildings."

That is the rub, "assist in". This post is about the North American mounds and the 19th century idea that they could not have been built by American Indians. It is established that they did so without any outside influence or assistance. But you still throw in the subtle implication that the builders might have only been assitants.

You seem intent on wanting to extend your nutcase ideas beyond the mounds, so as for you wanting facts about regions outside of North America, it is just as surely established and confirmed as with the mounds that those South American structures were done by none other than the very people whose descendants were living there when the first Europeans encountered them. Scholars have far more than "no clue". You can research it for yourself if you will steer away from the likes of Brien Foerster. Can you not see that what you are doing is no different than the Mormon who clings to Wayne May and Rod Meldrum? Do your own homework, from journals of science and credible sources and dump the garbage that you have been playing in.

He knows what he is talking about here. You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, and lashing out because those who actually understand the issues disagree with you. If you have any actual evidence, present it. I promise I will read it with an open mind, but not I won't suspend reality.

richardthebad (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He knows what he is talking about here. You are
> arguing from ignorance and incredulity, and
> lashing out because those who actually understand
> the issues disagree with you. If you have any
> actual evidence, present it. I promise I will
> read it with an open mind, but not I won't suspend
> reality.
_____________________________________________________________

In all honesty, I expected to 'learn' something from people that come so highly recommended. I did. Thanks!

However, the way the 'discussion' evolved I am getting really tired of this subject and it is not like this is one of my top priorities ----- it is more of an 'interest'.

I assure you I do not rely on 'theories' alone from others ---- although I try to remain open to what is out there just to be 'aware of it'. However, I do rely on some unconventional methods because of what I have studied and practice periodically and what my 'net friends' do more thoroughly. There are projects ongoing which I expect will maybe/hopefully gain more public attention and acceptance in the future.

I am 100% confident you wouldn't be impressed with the 'evidence' I have currently so I am not going to put it together and present it in this thread as it does not concern the Americas. There is some 'support' for the evidence I have but I 'believe' there will be a lot more in the future. I just need to be patient and see what the future brings. If more support does not materialize then I will have to reevaluate my positions ------ which I constantly do anyway.

I also assure you most of my 'beliefs in this area' have little impact on my everyday life. I have collected some artifacts in the nearby mountains and have some interest in the 'history of humanity'.

Facts!?! Nice try... But those of us in the know are aware that facts are the refuge of the competent!

Vogel has a book on this.

Even before the mounds were discovered, Europeans soaked in Old Testament myths needed an explanation why there were any humand in the New World.

Wish I could say the same for Mormonism!

Could it be that without good methods for recording their methods, and just verbally passing the info down from father-to-son (or mother-to-daughter, I don't know), it would be easy to lose the building knowledge and record of how it was done if a large percentage of the population were wiped out in a short time by European-introduced diseases like smallpox and warring with the European explorers/conquerors.

...in the case of those cultures lost centuries before Europeans arrived.

We forget how devastating disease outbreaks could be before modern anti-bacterials, anti-viruses, vaccines, etc.

Societies do collapse. A few bad winters or a famine could have killed off the mound builders' society, perhaps attack from other tribes.

By the time Columbus arrived, their society was gone. And even before whites got to some aress, disease precedeed them.

Much the same situation existed until recently in the Amazon. Some tribes avoided contact with.the invaders but they couldn't avoid the malarial mosquito.

There were apparently relatively few Indians left living round where Joseph Smith grew up, and whites and natives did not have good relations with them. So his knowledge of them would have been limited... the mound builder culture had disappeared centuries ago as well. I'd imagine for some of these tribes that they would have been like Stonehenge was to the English at that time - built by their ancestors but merely a kind of marvel to them.

ziller can confirm this thred ~



ziller am highly skilled warrior of unknown origin ~



(srs) ~


┏┓╱╲ In
┃╱╱╲╲ this
╱╱╭╮╲╲house
▔▏┗┛▕▔ everyone
╱▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔╲
is eagerly awaiting the apocalypse
╱╱┏┳┓╭╮┏┳┓ ╲╲
▔▏┗┻┛┃┃┗┻┛ ▕▔