I knew you were going to bring those articles up
ACtually, I had already done my research...and had read the articles in question (if you google horses and america they are among the first to come up)...HOWEVER...
Still don't agree...your sources are only by Mormon writers. Find me a scholarly paper (scientist/ evolutionist) that supports this.
THIS FROM YOUR WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
We can draw the following tentative conclusions:
Ass (donkey, they bleeped the common name) - the horse-like tapir is a possibility
Bees - not required in the Americas by the text, but pre-Columbian examples also exist
Cow - bovine species (e.g. buffalo) were present in the Americas
Elephant - only necessary in the Jaredite era, there is both traditional, inscriptional, and biologic remains as evidence for the Book of Mormon's claims
Horse - there is some evidence, not yet deemed definitive, which suggests that the true horse may have been known in at least some parts of Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times before Christ. There is also ample precedent for naming different animals with common names, and there are other New World candidates, such as deer and tapirs.
Silkworms - present in the New World with other options also available for silk cloth; see silk
Swine - native swine species existed, though only Jaredite use is noted (unsurprisingly, since Nephites were under the law of Moses).
[edit]Endnotes
So let's see...their argument is that people mistakenly called a tapir an ass?! (they don't look alike to me!!) and their research on horses is still indefinite...one is most likely from a Spaniard horse and two teeth?
ALSO
Besides, "everyone knows" there were no horses in the Americas before Columbus. Joseph Smith would have understood this common belief. If he was trying to perpetuate a fraud, why include an element that nearly everyone would have heard about, especially when it plays such a small role in the book?
Since when did "everyone know" back in Smith's time?! How can anyone even substantiate this claim...this is very weak.
Awfully convenient arguements....there may have been horses....but just in case, "horse" could mean other animals such as deer.
MIghty shaky that only sources you cite are Mormons
AS to the guerilla warfare...I am admittedly weak on the art of warfare
My brother was the one who read and loved that book. However, I seem to recall in my American History class (really digging deep here!!) learning about the guerilla like fighting that the American revolutionaries anacted when facing the British. I seem to recall that they hid in the trees and attacked in small forces.
If I remember correctly, you argued that Joseph Smith would not have been aware of such tactics as guerilla warfare. I contend that the "idea" of guerilla warfare is not as new as you posted. This from Wikipedia
Guerrilla warfare can be conceived as a continuum. [1] On the low end are small-scale raids, ambushes and attacks. In ancient times these actions were often associated with smaller tribal polities fighting a larger empire, as in the struggle of Rome against the Spanish tribes for over a century. In the modern era they continue with the operations of terrorist, insurgent or revolutionary groups. The upper end is composed of a fully integrated political-military strategy, comprising both large and small units, engaging in constantly shifting mobile warfare, both on the low-end "guerrilla" scale, and that of large, mobile formations with modern arms. The latter phase came to fullest expression in the operations of Mao tse-Tung in China and Vo Nguyen Giap in Vietnam. In between are a large variety of situations - from the struggles of Palestinian guerrillas in the contemporary era, to Spanish and Portuguese irregulars operating with the conventional units of British General Wellington, during the Peninsular War against Napoleon.[2].
This form of basic warfare is hardly a recent invention, although I have no doubt that it has been perfected to an art form
Also, I seem to remember that the Romans were the ones that actually developed much of the organized warfare and that those that came before WERE the random small fighting forces. I was unde rthe impression that was why they were so indomitable as an army.
Someone else will probably have more expert background on the strategies and history of warfare...that was my memory and the quick web research. My area of expertise is biology...I objected to your claim about the horses.
My conclusions?
1) The animal arguements are weak, this is the evidence?!
2) Joseph Smith, and if my male teenage students are any indications, would have no problem understanding, creating, knowing about the type of fighting know as guerilla warfare. Isn't knowing about battle strategies part of the Y chromosome?!?
Sorry about the last, guys, I always like to joke with my students that making cool sound effect noises must be one the Y chromosome, since all of my nephews could make cool noises for their cars and none of my nieces could.
Zoegirl
