Where have all the Lamanites gone?

[woot]

TIme is certainly an important factor, but so is proportion, as Indy points out. In fact, in the paper today they quoted an archeologist from Stanford who was quite skpetoical about the findings of the neadertal study as it wa sinconsistent with everythign in the archeological record. He was keeping an open mind, hwoever.

I wonder what evidence that guy has been looking at, since the mtDNA evidence suggesting they didn't interbreed has been relied upon in spite of the extreme (to my mind, at least) paleontological evidence that they did interbreed. The archaeological evidence suggests that they used very similar, often identical toolkits, which might suggest that they shared knowledge, but doesn't seem to speak either way as to breeding.

I think that's why the new DNA evidence has been so widely accepted despite shattering the heretofore mainstream view, even though the new paper is really only the tip of an iceberg and a lot more work needs to be done to confirm it.

As for proportion, there's really no way knowing. Lehi's folks seemed very prolific, but it is true that the formerly Asian people got to the New World a lot sooner. "Several million" seems very unlikely, but they certainly outnumbered the Lamanites. We should still be able to see some Israelite markers either way, unless their genome was that inferior. In order to see the number of Neandertal genes that we do, there would only need to have been a couple dozen matings. So either the Lamanite genome was inferior, they didn't interbreed with other people in America at that time (either because they were exterminated or they were just really ugly), or the most likely third option which needn't be stated.

[beefytee]

Rather many see the use of AA as a pejorative because it's this PC, white person created term.

The first place I heard the term was the Cosby Show.

[creekster]

I wonder what evidence that guy has been looking at, since the mtDNA evidence suggesting they didn't interbreed has been relied upon in spite of the extreme (to my mind, at least) paleontological evidence that they did interbreed. The archaeological evidence suggests that they used very similar, often identical toolkits, which might suggest that they shared knowledge, but doesn't seem to speak either way as to breeding.

I think that's why the new DNA evidence has been so widely accepted despite shattering the heretofore mainstream view, even though the new paper is really only the tip of an iceberg and a lot more work needs to be done to confirm it.

As for proportion, there's really no way knowing. Lehi's folks seemed very prolific, but it is true that the formerly Asian people got to the New World a lot sooner. "Several million" seems very unlikely, but they certainly outnumbered the Lamanites. We should still be able to see some Israelite markers either way, unless their genome was that inferior. In order to see the number of Neandertal genes that we do, there would only need to have been a couple dozen matings. So either their genome was inferior, they didn't interbreed with other people in America at that time either because they were exterminated or they were just really ugly, or the most likely third option which needn't be stated.

The paper didnt explain the stanford guy's position at all, so I have no idea.

Don't you make the point on the neandertal analogy? If it only takes a couple of dozen matings and we know there was migration back to Africa, then why dont we see the genes there? Isnt that theproblem? and one of the guy's answers to this quesiton, in the article you linked, was becasue they hadnt looked in the correct place in Afirca yet.

[Surfah]

I wonder what evidence that guy has been looking at, since the mtDNA evidence suggesting they didn't interbreed has been relied upon in spite of the extreme (to my mind, at least) paleontological evidence that they did interbreed. The archaeological evidence suggests that they used very similar, often identical toolkits, which might suggest that they shared knowledge, but doesn't seem to speak either way as to breeding.

I think that's why the new DNA evidence has been so widely accepted despite shattering the heretofore mainstream view, even though the new paper is really only the tip of an iceberg and a lot more work needs to be done to confirm it.

As for proportion, there's really no way knowing. Lehi's folks seemed very prolific, but it is true that the formerly Asian people got to the New World a lot sooner. "Several million" seems very unlikely, but they certainly outnumbered the Lamanites. We should still be able to see some Israelite markers either way, unless their genome was that inferior. In order to see the number of Neandertal genes that we do, there would only need to have been a couple dozen matings. So either the Lamanite genome was inferior, they didn't interbreed with other people in America at that time (either because they were exterminated or they were just really ugly), or the most likely third option which needn't be stated.

Asian blood is strong. It's taken me years to train my hair to lay down and I still can't grow any facial hair.

[SeattleUte]

Prior to a recent trip to Prague I spent some time reading about the history of the Czechs. In more than one book I read that the Czechs claim they are descended from a celtic tribe that wandered into Central Europe but that this is complete poppycock based on both the linguisitc and genetic evidence. Sure enough, Every Czech I met there with whom this topic came up asserted they were descended from Celts. When I told them what I had read and what the evidence showed, they scoffed. One guy was even incensed. I guess they need modern revelation, too.

In the Nineteenth Century the origin of races was a morbid fascination of many people, including great historians, philosophers, poets, composers, even scientists. Like the rest of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon is like a time capsule for the time and place of its origin. Of course, these racial theories led to much mischief in the 20th century.

One of my favorite passages in the Kindly Ones was during a debate between two intellectuals. One of them says that Germany has the greatest "racial anthropologists in the world". The other interlocutor (the only really sympathetic character in the book; an enlightened scientist trapped in the Third Reich) throws up his hands, exasperated, and says, "No one else has ANY!"

[Indy Coug]

I wonder what evidence that guy has been looking at, since the mtDNA evidence suggesting they didn't interbreed has been relied upon in spite of the extreme (to my mind, at least) paleontological evidence that they did interbreed. The archaeological evidence suggests that they used very similar, often identical toolkits, which might suggest that they shared knowledge, but doesn't seem to speak either way as to breeding.

I think that's why the new DNA evidence has been so widely accepted despite shattering the heretofore mainstream view, even though the new paper is really only the tip of an iceberg and a lot more work needs to be done to confirm it.

As for proportion, there's really no way knowing. Lehi's folks seemed very prolific, but it is true that the formerly Asian people got to the New World a lot sooner. "Several million" seems very unlikely, but they certainly outnumbered the Lamanites. We should still be able to see some Israelite markers either way, unless their genome was that inferior. In order to see the number of Neandertal genes that we do, there would only need to have been a couple dozen matings. So either the Lamanite genome was inferior, they didn't interbreed with other people in America at that time (either because they were exterminated or they were just really ugly), or the most likely third option which needn't be stated.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X"]Amazon.com: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (9781400040063): Charles C. Mann: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FJ3ZA3Q7L.@@AMEPARAM@@51FJ3ZA3Q7L[/ame]

This book in part discusses the population of the Americas prior to Columbus and that it was much larger and much less agrarian than commonly thought.

Ether refers to over 2 million people dying during the Jaredite wars.

[Solon]

In the Nineteenth Century the origin of races was a morbid fascination of many people, incuding great historians, philosophers, poets, composers, even scientists.

I'm staying out of the Book of Mormon debates, but here's the benchmark for 19th-century racial "anthropology" by de Gobineau

(PS - that's a really interesting story, creekster, about how culture and tradition are sometimes more important than "fact" in understanding why people are the way they are.)

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Inequality_of_the_Human_Races"]An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[woot]

The paper didnt explain the stanford guy's position at all, so I have no idea.

Don't you make the point on the neandertal analogy? If it only takes a couple of dozen matings and we know there was migration back to Africa, then why dont we see the genes there? Isnt that theproblem? and one of the guy's answers to this quesiton, in the article you linked, was becasue they hadnt looked in the correct place in Afirca yet.

Well, the couple dozen matings was referring to the non-African figures. It's speculation that the same markers would have made it back to Africa. If they did, they'd be much weaker and much harder to find, however, so it's understandable that they didn't show up in the first draft, and it'd be understandable if they didn't show up at all. My point is that a couple dozen matings 50,000 years ago shouldn't show a stronger result than a lot more matings 1600 years ago.

[creekster]

Well, the couple dozen matings was referring to the non-African figures. It's speculation that the same markers would have made it back to Africa. If they did, they'd be much weaker and much harder to find, however, so it's understandable that they didn't show up in the first draft, and it'd be understandable if they didn't show up at all. My point is that a couple dozen matings 50,000 years ago shouldn't show a stronger result than a lot more matings 1600 years ago.

I see your speculation sensor only goes in one direction.

[Indy Coug]

Well, the couple dozen matings was referring to the non-African figures. It's speculation that the same markers would have made it back to Africa. If they did, they'd be much weaker and much harder to find, however, so it's understandable that they didn't show up in the first draft, and it'd be understandable if they didn't show up at all. My point is that a couple dozen matings 50,000 years ago shouldn't show a stronger result than a lot more matings 1600 years ago.

What is the ratio of a couple dozen matings 50,000 years ago against the total number of matings in that region?

[Surfah]

The first place I heard the term was the Cosby Show.

Thank Carsey and Werner!

[Slim]

I am like 1/8 Native American but my last name is Rainwater which is about as Native American sounding as you can get.

Anyway, in HS I started dating this girl that had just moved from UT. She would, occasionally, refer to me as a Lamanite. It annoyed me to no end and I really think it is because I viscerally understood it in the more broad BOM context to mean "Those who did not believe in Christ".

It wasn't until I started dating her that I had heard anyone refer to present-day Native Americans as Lamanites

[SeattleUte]

I'm staying out of the Book of Mormon debates, but here's the benchmark for 19th-century racial "anthropology" by de Gobineau

(PS - that's a really interesting story, creekster, about how culture and tradition are sometimes more important than "fact" in understanding why people are the way they are.)

An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not so fast. Creekster's czech interlocutor may have been right. See territories of ancient Celts:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations"]Celtic nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Celtic_Nations1.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Celtic_Nations1.svg/200px-Celtic_Nations1.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/dc/Celtic_Nations1.svg/200px-Celtic_Nations1.svg.png[/ame]

Celts were among European aboriginal peoples--people who had been there since before history when Romans arrived (an analogy to New World aborigines is apt). The current prevalence of Celtic people in certain regions generally tracks where Roman civilization ceased to sink deep roots or failed to make much inroad at all (e.g., on the far side of Hadrian's Wall). Europe is a small place compared to the entire New World. Creekster's Czech friend has a better case for Celtic ancestry than Samoans do for Hebrew ancestry.

I'M NOT DEBATING THE BOOK OF MORMON.

[creekster]

Not so fast. Creekster's czech interlocutor may have been right. See territories of ancient Celts:

Celtic nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celts were among European aboriginal peoples--people who had been there since before history when Romans arrived (an analogy to New World aborigines is apt). The current prevalence of Celtic people in certain regions generally tracks where Roman civilization ceased to sink deep roots or failed to make much inroad at all (e.g., on the far side of Hadrian's Wall). Europe is a small place compared to the entire New World. Creekster's Czech friend has a better case for Celtic ancestry than Samoans do for Hebrew ancestry.

I'M NOT DEBATING THE BOOK OF MORMON.

Right, as the articel says, the name Bohemia comes from the Boii cetls, but that is all they got. Linguisitcs and genes say there is no other connection. according to the books I read. But the modern Czechs fancy it that way nonetheless.

[jay santos]

Polynesian pre-historic ancestors come from the south coast of China. I don't believe this is debatable based on the linguistic evidence.

In official LDS publications, missionary materials, conference talks, and as strongly suggested or outright stated in the Book of Mormon introduction, Lamanite used to refer to all aboriginal peoples the New World, from the South Sea Islands to Greenland, from Prudoe Bay to Tierra Del Fuego. As usual, there is no coherant doctrine or direction on this. Modern revelation is sorely needed.

Personally, I don't know why the term couldn't just as well refer to Celts or Maltese.

You've obviously never read Alma 63.