Evidence of Horses in Pre-columbian america?

[Thetruechurch]

Critics argue like to argue that horses in the Book of Mormon is non-historical and that there are no evidences of actual horses on the American Continent prior to the arrival of Europeans.

I was reading about Utah and something called "petroglyphs" which are ancient cave paintings by Native Americans, all thousands of years old. Bryce Canon in Utah is full of these.

So I google imaged "Bryce canyon petrogylphs":

then this came up:

This image is a cave painting in Bryce canyon:

It is thousands of years old, from a culture which dwelled in Utah for possibly 10,000 years (presuming its not a fraud) and what do we see? A man depicted on a horse shooting arrows! A genuine trait of horses existing in America's deep past contrary to what everyone thought. European men did not discover the existence of this place and culture up until the late 19th century

And nobody else seems to have even noticed this?

Edited July 24, 2011 by Thetruechurch

[pam]

Is there any archaelogical evidence concerning horses and elephants on the American continent during Jaredite and Nephite times? | Ask Gramps

[Guest Sachi001]

Well one thing I have a problem with horses being non-existent in the Americas is the logistics.

First- it takes almost an entire year (364 days avg) for one mare to bear one foal. By the early 1800's when European settlers were discovering the Western tribes like the Sioux, Comanche, etc... They had numerous horses in the tens of thousands. Since the Spanish brought only a few to begin with they had to bring 1000's more every year. Add to the fact that since they were technically stolen or given. There were few in the beginning for mass breeding. Now either the Europeans brought so much many more on ships over or else the horse was here. Mathematically it does not add up to the pregnancy rates.

Second on logistics is the historians claim it was dogs who were pack animals that carried loads for migratory tribes.. However if you consider the the complexity of such requirements of the dogs.

Western tribes from the Mississippi used tepee's. Such required weights of ten poles plus numerous hides for cover. Along with various home supplies such as food, weapons, clothes etc...

The weight load being as such one pole per dog and one hide per dog would along with supplies would theoretically equal to about 20 dogs avg give or take a few per family. With a tribe of 200 hundred families were looking at 4000 dogs. Just to feed that many per day every dog is quite a bit. Imagine the amount of time to hunt for the dogs feeding and the family among the tribe.

I may be blowing smoke in the wind with my supposition. Now that is a complex system to maintain and I have yet to find a feasible study to support the amount of logistics such tribe can maintain with dogs as pack animals only. Which leads my suspect to such thought that dogs were the only pack animals for tribes in western America.

The numbers do not add up to support IMO

[rameumptom]

There are problems with all of this. First, while many of the petroglyphs of the area are thousands of years old, they tend to either be 10,000 years old (before Jaredites), or during recent times after the Spanish arrived. So, this petroglyph of an Indian on a horse shooting an arrow may not fit the correct time frame. Worse, they potentially could be recent.

Second, the Book of Mormon does not really describe horses as being ridden. They actually seem to have been used primarily for meat or perhaps beasts of burden, but not ridden.

Third, the Jaredites and Nephites probably were not in that area. They most likely were further south into Mexico and Central America.

Each of these makes tying horses with the Nephites or Jaredites a harder sell, even for LDS scholars.

Note that Ask Gramps quotes Reynolds/Sjodahl. Sjodahl died in 1939, and his son published it in 1955. That means the most recent information in the compendium is almost 60 years old, and likely decades older than that. Science and Archaeology have moved leap years ahead of the information in those books, so I would not rely on them for accurate archaeological information today.

It is just as likely, as some current LDS scholars suggest, that other animals were used for riding or whatever, and were called horses by the Nephites. This could have included some deer or llamas, which were known to be ridden or used as beasts of burden. As for elephants, it is possible that the Nephites saw tapirs being used as beasts of burden, and named them elephants. Many societies do this. Hippopotamus literally means "water horse" as Greeks named them when going into Africa.

[Saldrin]

Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat

[rameumptom]

Saldrin,

Yes, there were horses here used for meat. But again, this article discusses evidence from 10,000 years ago. At most, the Jaredites arrived in the Americas about 3500 years ago.

Interesting information, but it is not evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[Dravin]

Saldrin,

Yes, there were horses here used for meat. But again, this article discusses evidence from 10,000 years ago. At most, the Jaredites arrived in the Americas about 3500 years ago.

Interesting information, but it is not evidence for the Book of Mormon.

You're quite right that horses existing in the Americas isn't exactly earth shattering evidence for the Book of Mormon (just like the existence of Jerusalem at the right time isn't an open and shut case for the Bible), and it is entirely possible that the horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon are not Equus ferus but 10,000 year old native paintings of horses is a viable counter to the assertion that, "There were no precolumbian horses."

Also, why is the Jaredite arrival at 3500 an issue? The book of Ether does not to my knowledge (though all I did was a quick search for horse at LDS Scriptures ) attribute the presence of horses in the promised land to them having brought them over. It simply mentions them along with a other animals that were part of the riches of the house of Emer.

[rameumptom]

It becomes an issue if we try to claim that pre-Columbian horses from 10,000 years ago were eaten or ridden by Jaredites.

Trying to imply that evidence for pre-Columbian horses is evidence for the BoM just makes us lose the argument among real scholars. We become jokes in their eyes, because we do not separate good evidence out from the poor evidence or jokes.

And on an LDS forum, why else would someone post a link showing that Bryce Canyon pictoglyphs include an Indian on a horse shooting an arrow? I don't think it was an advertisement to see the wondrous Canyon lands of southern Utah. Do you?

[Dravin]

It becomes an issue if we try to claim that pre-Columbian horses from 10,000 years ago were eaten or ridden by Jaredites.

Okay, so your issue is that lack of contemporary (to the Jaredites) evidence of horses. Probably my misreading but you came across as it being an issue like the following timeline would be an issue:

1980s - I am born.

1999 - I receive a 2012 Honda Civic

And on an LDS forum, why else would someone post a link showing that Bryce Canyon pictoglyphs include an Indian on a horse shooting an arrow? I don't think it was an advertisement to see the wondrous Canyon lands of southern Utah. Do you?

Honestly I took it as:

For all you people who keep on harping on horses being an anachronism because there were no precolumbian horses? Evidence of precolumbian horses, now shut up.

[rameumptom]

Dravin, I see your point, but my thoughts still apply even here. Yes, there were pre-Columbian horses. But unless we find them contemporary to the BoM times and places, you may as well say there were pre-Columbian dinosaurs as well. It is true, but it is useless information when one is discussing the BoM, which for LDS is the most common reason to do so.

[Dravin]

Dravin, I see your point, but my thoughts still apply even here. Yes, there were pre-Columbian horses. But unless we find them contemporary to the BoM times and places, you may as well say there were pre-Columbian dinosaurs as well. It is true, but it is useless information when one is discussing the BoM, which for LDS is the most common reason to do so.

You have valid points, I just think you're a couple steps ahead of the OP is all.

[AboutToLeave]

That petroglph looked a lot more like a llama than a horse to me.

From the askGramps link

"Francis Drake did see large bands of wild horses on the Oregon Coast in 1579, far too early for any to have escaped from the Spaniards, grown wild, and traveled so vast a distance”

So 70 years isn't long enough for a quadrupedal animal to cross the content? Humans can cross the continent (on foot) in less than one year.

[slamjet]

I found a couple of articles pertaining to this subject:

MormonFortress.com

Fairlds.org

[Guest Sachi001]

That petroglyph looked a lot more like a llama than a horse to me.From the askGramps link

So 70 years isn't long enough for a quadrupedal animal to cross the content? Humans can cross the continent (on foot) in less than one year.

The petroglyph demonstrates a long tail emanating from the horse. Llamas do not have such.

[mightynancy]

That horse is on Newspaper Rock. While it's difficult to date petroglyphs, that image is believed to be no older than 2,000 years but could be much more recent; it appears that the images were added over a long span of time.

[Just_A_Guy]

So 70 years isn't long enough for a quadrupedal animal to cross the content? Humans can cross the continent (on foot) in less than one year.

I'm no expert on the migratory patterns of equines, but humans who cross the continent in less than a year typically knew where they were and where they were going, had the advantage of purpose-built equipment to assist their survival and the ability to carry their own food supplies with them, and were able to articulate a reason why moving was better than staying put.

Moreover, there's no reason to insist on the "horses" of the Book of Mormon being the exact species we now call "horses", unless you can also show that Smith knew what a llama (or alpaca, or any other South American-native quadraped) was, and deliberately opted for the word "horse" instead.

But, as you've made your decision for now, perhaps it's best not to clutter your mind with apologia for a belief system you've already rejected. May you find what you're looking for in your spiritual journey, wherever it leads you.

[Urlaubulusprime]

Is there any archaelogical evidence concerning horses and elephants on the American continent during Jaredite and Nephite times? | Ask Gramps

I read this Ask Gramps page and there's some interesting stuff there.

But can anyone provide any sources on the quotes he uses? I cant find a copy of the "commentary" book he quotes, but would like to see its references.

Ideally, I would like to see the actual text of Sir Francis Drakes' notes in which he allegedly expresses wonder at all the horses he sees.

Also, someone else in this thread mentioned that a tribe was found with tens of thousands of horses. Source please?

[Guest]

Not too far south of where I live is Hagerman, Idaho, which houses a museum dedicated to Hagerman Horses. Lots of fossils have been found around here. I don't know how old they are, or if they relate to this discussion enough to mention it, and I'm not invested enough in the topic to look it up and read myself. But I thought I'd bring it up in case anyone cares.

[Guest]

Okay, I lied. I got a little curious. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's (I know) article on Hagerman horses:

The Hagerman horse first appeared about 3.5 million years ago. It was approximately 110-145 centimeters (43 to 57 inches) tall at the shoulder. It weighed between 110 and 385 kilograms (385 to 847 pounds). An average Hagerman Horse was about the same size as an Arabian horse. It also was relatively stocky with a straight shoulder and thick neck, like a zebra, and a short, narrow, donkey-like skull. It is thought to have had a stiff, upright mane, ropy tail, medium-sized ears, striped legs, and some striping on the back.[citation needed]

The horse probably lived in grasslands and floodplains, which is what Hagerman was like 3 million years ago. Native North American horses went extinct about 10,000 years ago, at the same time as many other large-bodied species of the period.

[annewandering]

I am a bit curious what the evidence is that there were NO horses in Book of Mormon times. We are constantly finding things we didnt think were in various places.

Ok so the Book of Mormon says there were horses. 1 point on the side of saying there were horses. So 1 to 0 is what? Its not a lot of evidence but then again since there really is no proof at all there werent any horses............

[Urlaubulusprime]

Gramps says that he has personally seen a horse skeleton in a Buenos Aires Natural History museum, which was discovered by Charles Darwin in the area, and is all but indistinguishable from a modern horse.

After some research, I think Gramps may be confused. I see nothing in Darwins writings that says he found a full horse skeleton, but he did finds the teeth of Equus Curvidens. He did, however, find a full skeleton of a giant anteater, which was about the size of a small horse. This skeleton he did haul back to be preserved.

[Urlaubulusprime]

The quote that Sir Francis Drake saw "large bands of wild horses" allegedly appears in Robert Dudley's Arcano Del Mare.

I'm trying to find the actual text...

[HiJolly]

I think this idea came from the amazement of the Aztecs and Incas when they saw the Spaniards sitting on horses. They'd never seen anything like it, etc. etc.

I remember hearing these stories in grade school.

HiJolly

[bytor2112]

Not sure why all the fuss over horses.....frankly I would rather see evidence of "flying fiery serpents" or "leviathans" or "behemoths" or "unicorns" or that breed of talking donkey.

[mordorbund]

Not sure why all the fuss over horses.....frankly I would rather see evidence of "flying fiery serpents" or "leviathans" or "behemoths" or "unicorns" or that breed of talking donkey.

There's a series documentary on the talking donkey called "Shrek". Apparently they breed with dragons, which is why they're so rare.