This is where the Book of Mormon happened, according to AI

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because someone on the internet said it was contentious.

Someone on the internet, and all the research teams involved over the past decade and a half:

"Two issues long debated among Pacific and American prehistorians are (i) whether there was a pre-Columbian introduction of chicken (Gallus gallus) to the Americas and (ii) whether Polynesian contact with South America might be identified archaeologically, through the recovery of remains of unquestionable Polynesian origin." - Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile

"European chickens were introduced into the American continents by the Spanish after their arrival in the 15th century. However, there is ongoing debate as to the presence of pre-Columbian chickens among Amerindians in South America, particularly in relation to Chilean breeds such as the Araucana and Passion Fowl." - Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA

and more recently, a paper published in 2019:

"(Carter, 1971; Fitzpatrick and Callaghan, 2009; Rami´rez-Aliaga, 2010), have been arguing for a pre-Colombian introduction of the chicken in SA. Recently, the sequencing of the region of the mitochondrial genome from a Chilean bone dated from Ca. 1,304 to 1,424 AD suggested a pre-Columbian origin of the South American chicken (Storey et al., 2007). However, this work was contested by other authors (Gongora et al., 2008)" 

Edited January 25, 2024 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Someone on the internet, and all the research teams involved over the past decade and a half:

"Two issues long debated among Pacific and American prehistorians are (i) whether there was a pre-Columbian introduction of chicken (Gallus gallus) to the Americas and (ii) whether Polynesian contact with South America might be identified archaeologically, through the recovery of remains of unquestionable Polynesian origin." - Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile

"European chickens were introduced into the American continents by the Spanish after their arrival in the 15th century. However, there is ongoing debate as to the presence of pre-Columbian chickens among Amerindians in South America, particularly in relation to Chilean breeds such as the Araucana and Passion Fowl." - Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA

and more recently, a paper published in 2019:

"(Carter, 1971; Fitzpatrick and Callaghan, 2009; Rami´rez-Aliaga, 2010), have been arguing for a pre-Colombian introduction of the chicken in SA. Recently, the sequencing of the region of the mitochondrial genome from a Chilean bone dated from Ca. 1,304 to 1,424 AD suggested a pre-Columbian origin of the South American chicken (Storey et al., 2007). However, this work was contested by other authors (Gongora et al., 2008)" 

I am not convinced you read the post I was responding to.

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced you read the post I was responding to.

I read it a few times. I responded to it. the papers and research I’ve linked to also address the question in the post you were responding to. the dating of the bones is contested, not just the origin of the bones. The 2009 paper linked above goes into the reasons 

Edited January 25, 2024 by Zosimus

[Stargazer]

On 1/19/2024 at 2:59 AM, Zosimus said:

Even if we interpret steel as hardened bronze, we'd have to find a place where people were using hardened bronze swords in battle. Is there anywhere?

I've been ignoring this thread until this morning, and hit this particular question before I remembered this is an attempt to feed the AI just enough information to get something useful out of it. So I addressed the issue of steel from an apologetic viewpoint and was about to post it when I got to thinking I better check out my assumptions. So this is less relevant than I thought it was, or maybe more relevant, because if the text assumes "steel" in its present meaning, it may miss the curve entirely. So here's what I originally wrote, because I hate leaving my own undying prose in the dust. Maybe it will help in some way,

Begin digression.

The problem with the word "steel" is that we're operating in the present with the word, and to us the word refers to "...an alloy of iron and carbon with improved strength and fracture resistance compared to other forms of iron." {Wikipedia} This is what we've understood by the word for centuries. But the history of the word originates not in metallurgy, but in adjectives or characteristics:

"The noun steel originates from the Proto-Germanic adjective stahliją or stakhlijan 'made of steel', which is related to stahlaz or stahliją 'standing firm'."

For that reason, we can find apparently anachronistic use of the word "steel" in the King James Bible (emphasis added).

• In Job 20:24 we read: "He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through."
• Similarly in Psalm 18:24: "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms."

If you do a text search for the words "iron" and "steel" in the OT, the only instances of "steel" that occur are in connection with bows. And as we will remember, there was a problem for Lehi's expedition when Nephi's "steel bow" broke. Nephi's bow could not have been of an alloy of iron and carbon. How the heck could he have drawn it if it were made of that, let alone break it? The technology of archery has a rich and long history. Read up on the types of bow here on Wikipedia. It seems that it should be obvious that a "steel bow" is one that is simply exceptionally strong, that propels the arrows a greater distance or with more force.

The point is, the word steel has been used historically to mean things (or people) which are exceptionally strong. Do you remember that stalwart (<-there's that root word, again!) Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili? Of course you do! But not by that name. He preferred the name Joseph Stalin. He was the "man of steel" who was made of the same stuff you and I are made of. There wasn't a hint of iron-carbon alloy in his entire body.

The other problem with "steel" and "brass" and suchlike is that we are reading a translation into English from an ancient language whose deepest nuances have been lost to time. In many cases we (or the King James translators) are not entirely sure what was meant by some words. The word "brass" in the OT is translated from a word which may actually mean "bronze". 

And with the Book of Mormon, God Himself gave the translation, and He seemed to want to stay consistent with human translations and word usage. 

End digression.

Now, back to ChatGPT. Does the coding behind it recognize the etymological history of the word "steel"? Would asking it about "steel" in the book yield anything useful?

I'm a retired programmer. I've never worked on an AI project, but as has been pointed out here by some others, computers can only produce good output if they are given good input, and that input also includes how they are coded. 

Input.

 

[Zosimus]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Now, back to ChatGPT. Does the coding behind it recognize the etymological history of the word "steel"? Would asking it about "steel" in the book yield anything useful?

We can ask. I posted your comment above and this is the reply:

GPT-4: 
Your observation about the historical use and translation of the word "steel" is quite insightful. Indeed, the evolution of language and the changing meanings of words over time can present challenges in understanding historical texts accurately. The use of the word "steel" in historical texts, particularly in translations like the King James Bible, often reflects a broader meaning related to strength or resilience, rather than the specific modern metallurgical definition of steel as an alloy of iron and carbon.

In ancient texts, references to materials like "steel" or "brass" should be approached with an understanding that these terms might not correspond directly to their modern counterparts. The translation process, especially from ancient languages, often involves interpreting words based on the context and the best available knowledge of the time. For example, as you mentioned, the term "brass" in the Old Testament is often thought to refer to what we would now call bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, rather than the modern alloy of copper and zinc that we call brass.

In the case of the King James Bible and similar ancient texts, the word "steel" might have been used to describe any exceptionally hard or strong material, possibly even iron or a particularly well-made bronze, rather than the specific iron-carbon alloy we understand today.

This linguistic evolution highlights the importance of considering the historical and cultural context when interpreting ancient texts. It also underscores the challenges in translating and understanding the nuances of language from long-ago periods, where the exact scientific or technical meanings might differ significantly from modern usage.

[Zosimus]

Let's see what ChatGPT has to say about steel in our proposed geographies. We'll rank once with a strict interpretation of the term steel and then again with a looser interpretation.

Zosimus: 

Considering the distribution of iron and steel technologies between 600 BC and 400 AD, and the evidence for iron blooms and iron slag dating to the same time period, rank the following locations on a scaled of 1 to 10 based on the likelihood that steel swords would have been present, with 1 being low convergence and 10 being high convergence. 

• Isthmus of Tehuantepec
• Isthmus of Darien
• Isthmus of Kra
• Niagara Peninsula
• Baja Peninsula
• Adam's Bridge

GPT-4:
When ranking the likelihood of the presence of steel swords in the given locations between 600 BC and 400 AD, considering the distribution of iron and steel technologies and the evidence for iron blooms and iron slag, the scale of convergence (1 being low, 10 being high) would be as follows:

Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Mexico): Convergence Likelihood - 2/10. The Pre-Columbian civilizations in this region, such as the Maya and Zapotecs, were known for their metallurgy skills but primarily with materials other than iron, like gold and copper. The evidence for iron and steel technology, including steel swords, is limited.

Isthmus of Darien (Panama): Convergence Likelihood - 1/10. The indigenous cultures in this area were not known for advanced metallurgy involving iron or steel. Their metalworking was more focused on materials like gold and copper.

Isthmus of Kra (Thailand/Malaysia): Convergence Likelihood - 7/10. Given its proximity to ancient iron production sites like Kedah and archaeological findings in places like Khao Sam Kaeo, this region likely had access to iron technology. It's plausible that this included the production or import of steel swords, given the region's historical trade networks.

Niagara Peninsula (Canada/USA): Convergence Likelihood - 1/10. Indigenous cultures in this region did not have iron smelting technology during this period. Their tools and weapons were typically made from materials like stone, bone, and wood.

Baja Peninsula (Mexico): Convergence Likelihood - 2/10. Similar to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the indigenous cultures in this region were not noted for their iron or steel metallurgy during this period.

Adam's Bridge (Sri Lanka - India): Convergence Likelihood - 8/10. This region's proximity to ancient India, a hub for early metallurgical advancements, makes it likely that steel swords could have been present. Ancient India was known for producing high-quality steel, like the famous Wootz steel, which was renowned for its strength and quality.

This assessment is based on the historical context of metallurgical development in these regions, with particular emphasis on the evidence of iron processing and the cultural exchange that could facilitate the spread of such technologies.

Zosimus:
Let's try that again. This time please remember my comment above about the nuances of language and translations of ancient texts and allow for the evolution and the changing meanings of words like steel, iron and bronze/brass over time. Adjust the ranking accordingly.

GPT-4:
Considering the nuances of language, the evolution of terms like "steel," "iron," and "bronze/brass," and the historical context of metallurgy between 600 BC and 400 AD, the adjusted ranking for the likelihood of what might have been referred to as "steel swords" in ancient texts for the given locations would be:

Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Mexico): Convergence Likelihood - 3/10. Given the broad usage of terms, what might have been termed "steel" could refer to any strong, durable metal known to the Mesoamerican civilizations, like certain bronze or copper alloys. However, true steel in the modern sense was likely not present.

Isthmus of Darien (Panama): Convergence Likelihood - 2/10. Similar to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, any reference to "steel" would likely mean a locally known strong metal, but not steel in the contemporary understanding.

Isthmus of Kra (Thailand/Malaysia): Convergence Likelihood - 8/10. The region's proximity to ancient iron production sites and trade networks increases the likelihood that what was referred to as "steel" might have been high-quality iron or an early form of steel, aligning more closely with the modern understanding of these terms.

Niagara Peninsula (Canada/USA): Convergence Likelihood - 1/10. Indigenous cultures here are unlikely to have had terms in their languages equivalent to "steel" or "iron" in the context of sword-making, as their metallurgical development was different.

Baja Peninsula (Mexico): Convergence Likelihood - 3/10. As with Tehuantepec and Darien, any ancient reference to "steel" in this region would more likely refer to the strongest metals they processed, which were not steel by contemporary standards.

Adam's Bridge (Sri Lanka - India): Convergence Likelihood - 8/10. In this region, the likelihood of the presence of what we would recognize as steel swords is higher. Ancient India's advanced metallurgy, including the production of high-quality steel like Wootz, likely influenced the materials and terminology used in regions within its cultural and trade influence.

This ranking takes into account the possibility that historical references to "steel" might not align precisely with the modern definition but could represent the strongest and most advanced metallic materials known to each culture at the time.

[Zosimus]

OK following a slight diversion to discuss chickens and steel, let's get back on track with the geography. Returning to John Clark's comment in Revisiting "A Key for Evaluating Book of Mormon Geographies”:

"It has been my experience that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when confronted with a Book of Mormon geography, worry about the wrong things. Almost invariably the first question that arises is whether the geography fits the archaeology of the proposed area. This should be our second question, the first being whether the geography fits the facts of the Book of Mormon—a question we all can answer without being versed in American archaeology. Only after a given geography reconciles all of the significant geographic details given in the Book of Mormon does the question of archaeological and historical detail merit attention. The Book of Mormon must be the final and most important arbiter in deciding the correctness of a given geography; otherwise we will be forever hostage to the shifting sands of expert opinion."

I've had to go through the schematics included in John Clark's paper and redact the names and labels that reference the Book of Mormon, this way GPT will not be able to identify the text and apply its filters to the responses. My process has been to check whether or not GPT can identify the name of the book after uploading each document and schematic. For example, after redacting this schematic from John Clark's article, I uploaded it to the GPT and asked if the name of the book could be identified. The response was as follows:

GPT-4: The image you've uploaded appears to depict a schematic layout of a geographical region related to the historical text you've mentioned. This diagram illustrates a landmass divided into two major parts: "Land Northward" and "Land Southward," separated by a "Narrow Neck." Notably, the "Central City" is positioned between two bodies of water labeled as "West Sea" and "East Sea." Additionally, there's a "Wilderness Strip" that seems to further divide the "Land Southward," below which lies the "Southern City."

Given the description in the text, this schematic may represent the isthmus and surrounding lands where the West Asian tribes migrated to in the 6th century BC and remained isolated until after the 5th century AD. The positioning of the cities and the wilderness strip could be crucial for understanding the movements, economy, and military strategies of the inhabitants.

In evaluating this map against the historical text, we would look for consistency with the described geographical features such as the relative locations of seas, cities, and wilderness areas. Moreover, we could attempt to match this schematic with real-world geography by looking for a corresponding isthmus that aligns with the described orientation and features, such as an isthmus flanked by two seas with a central and a southern city separated by a wilderness strip.

Zosimus: Are you able to identify the name of the book?

GPT-4: The book you are referring to seems to be a historical text that describes the migration and settlement of three West Asian tribes on an isthmus between the 6th century BC and the 5th century AD. Unfortunately, based on the information provided and the content of the uploaded documents, the actual name of the book is not explicitly mentioned.

The documents contain references to the internal geography, military technologies, apparel, transportation methods, metallurgy, flora, fauna, and other cultural and geographical features present in the lands described within this historical text, but they do not specify the title of the book itself. If the name of the book is in the content of the uploaded documents, I can search through them to find the specific reference. Would you like me to do that?

Zosimus: Yes

GPT-4: The search through the documents did not yield any results that explicitly mention the title of the book. The documents consistently refer to it as "the book" without providing a specific name. 

 

[Zosimus]

Next schematic, from John Clark's "Revisiting "A Key for Evaluating Book of Mormon Geographies”. As explained, I've removed any labels that identify the points or transects with the Book of Mormon. Here is ChatGPT's response to my request to summarize it's understanding of the schematic, and to verify it can see the graphic as uploaded;

Zosimus: I have uploaded a schematic, could you summarize your interpretation of the image?

GPT-4: The image you have uploaded appears to be a diagram representing a series of transects with associated walking times between them, possibly as part of a geographical analysis. The diagram includes transects labeled 1 through 7 and specifies walking times, such as "1.5 days walk" or "6 days walk," between certain points. The transects are positioned in relation to two bodies of water, labeled as the "West Sea" and "East Sea", and the cardinal direction "North" is indicated at the top of the image.

The presence of seas on either side of the landmass suggests it could be an isthmus or a peninsula. The overall layout may be of strategic importance, with Transect 2 possibly indicating a choke point between the two larger landmasses or bodies of water. The diagram does not provide specific geographic names or real-world locations, so it appears to be a stylized representation rather than a map based on actual geographic coordinates.

This schematic could be used to deduce the relative positions and travel times between key locations in a given historical or geographic study. The indicated walking times also suggest the map is at a human scale, potentially relevant to pedestrian or animal travel rather than mechanized transport, aligning with the historical period of interest (600 BC to 420 AD).

If this image is meant to be matched with a historical landscape or is part of the text analysis, I could attempt to interpret the information in the context of the history and geography of the specific time period you are interested in. Please let me know how you would like to proceed with this image or if there is a specific question or analysis you had in mind.

Zosimus: Correct, this image is meant to be matched with a historical landscape as part of the text analysis, could you attempt to interpret the information in the context of the time period between 600 BC to 420 AD?

GPT-4: The schematic you've provided appears to be a conceptual map, indicating travel distances between different points or transects, with the distances measured by the number of days it would take to walk from one to another. To interpret this in the context of the history and geography of the specified time period (600 BC to 420 AD), and particularly in the context of West Asian tribes migrating to an isthmus, we can make some educated guesses about the kind of landscape this schematic may be trying to represent:

Proximity to Seas: The mention of the East Sea and West Sea flanking the transects suggests a landmass with two major bodies of water on either side, indicative of an isthmus. This matches the description from the provided historical context where an isthmus separates the land northward from the land southward.

Travel Times: The schematic indicates varying travel times between different transects, ranging from 1.5 to 11 days' walk. This suggests a variety of terrains and possibly the presence of natural barriers that affect travel time.

Orientation: The transects are oriented with respect to the cardinal direction (north), which can be important for matching this schematic with real-world geography.

Military and Settlement Implications: The distances could indicate the range or reach of military campaigns, trade routes, or migration paths of the tribes. This aligns with the historical context where there are descriptions of military fortifications and the movements of armies in the source texts.

Geographical Features: The schematic doesn't specify natural features other than the seas, but the travel times may suggest the presence of valleys, plains, mountainous regions, or rivers that would have affected the speed of travel.

To attempt to match this with a historical landscape, we need to consider the real-world isthmuses known during the given time period. Isthmuses were critical for trade and military campaigns due to their strategic positions connecting two larger landmasses while being bordered by seas, making them natural chokepoints.

Without more detailed information from the historical texts you're analyzing, any attempt to precisely identify the land described would be conjecture. If there are more details in the texts about the characteristics of the seas, the nature of the wilderness, or the specific features of the cities and other locations, those could be pivotal in narrowing down the possible real-world locations that match the schematic's geography.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Zosimus

[webbles]

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

particularly in the context of West Asian tribes migrating to an isthmus

I don't think you should include this information if you just want to focus on the geography of the promised land.  The AI will be taking into account whether a West Asian tribe of that time period can reach this isthmus and that will rule out locations.  Since the Book of Mormon text states that Nephi built the ship "after the manner which the Lord had shown unto [him]", the Lehites were using technology that the AI wouldn't be aware of.

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think you should include this information if you just want to focus on the geography of the promised land.  The AI will be taking into account whether a West Asian tribe of that time period can reach this isthmus and that will rule out locations.  Since the Book of Mormon text states that Nephi built the ship "after the manner which the Lord had shown unto [him]", the Lehites were using technology that the AI wouldn't be aware of.

Not to mention using the Liahona for navigation, that would drive the AI crazy.

[Zosimus]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think you should include this information if you just want to focus on the geography of the promised land.  The AI will be taking into account whether a West Asian tribe of that time period can reach this isthmus and that will rule out locations.  Since the Book of Mormon text states that Nephi built the ship "after the manner which the Lord had shown unto [him]", the Lehites were using technology that the AI wouldn't be aware of.

Fair enough, i'll remove it from the guidelines for the GPT. There are a few other things that could also add some bias in the analysis of the geographies. Like the bit about the people remaining isolated in the land until the 5th century AD. i've removed that as well. The instructions for the GPT are now set to:

"Historical Text Explorer is a scholarly GPT specializing in historical texts from 600 BC to 420 AD, with a specific expertise in history, ancient technology, flora, fauna, metallurgy and world geography in the period between 2500 BC and the 5th century AD. It provides detailed, historically accurate analyses, focusing on linguistic, cultural, and geographical context. The GPT offers deep insights into geographical landscapes and their historical significance. More specifically, this GPT will be a tool to evaluate a text published in the early 19th century that claims to be an English translation of the history of a people that inhabited an unidentified isthmus between the 6th century BC and the 5th century AD. Users of the GPT will attempt to identify the land described in the book by analyzing the geographical features described in the book."

Anything else that should be adjusted to make it equal for all geographies?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

More specifically, this GPT will be a tool to evaluate a text published in the early 19th century that claims to be an English translation of the history of a people that inhabited an unidentified isthmus between the 6th century BC and the 5th century AD.

How many texts published in the early 19th century claim to be a translation of a people living between the 6th century BC and 5th century AD?  I worry this might trigger the AI to find the Book of Mormon.  I know you did some testing but this line feels likely to influence it a little too much.  Does the fact that it was translated or published in the 19th century affect the geography?

[Zosimus]

22 hours ago, webbles said:

How many texts published in the early 19th century claim to be a translation of a people living between the 6th century BC and 5th century AD?  I worry this might trigger the AI to find the Book of Mormon.  I know you did some testing but this line feels likely to influence it a little too much.  Does the fact that it was translated or published in the 19th century affect the geography?

Valid, I've removed it.

Next we need to establish the distances between transects. I've uploaded the formula John Clark has proposed for USD (unit 

"Distances in the Book of Mormon are more problematical than directions. My assessments of distance are based on travel times, whether stated, inferred, or conjectured. Distance as “time” is familiar to most of us. When asked how far it is from Provo, Utah, to Burley, Idaho, for example, I quickly respond that it is three and a half hours rather than 220 miles. If my dad is driving, the “distance” (in terms of time) is considerably less—and significantly more if my mother is driving. Similar concerns with velocity are relevant to Book of Mormon accounts. I have converted all travel times into “units of standard distance” (USD), analogous to our “miles” or “kilometers.” The USD is based on one day’s normal travel over flat land. Travel through mountainous or hilly “wilderness” is considered to be half of the normal standard in terms of actual linear distance covered. In other words, two days of travel through the wilderness would cover the same as-a-crow-flies distance as one day’s travel on a plain, this because of the extra vertical and lateral movement necessitated by more difficult terrain. Internal evidence in the Book of Mormon is convincing that “wilderness” refers to mountainous regions filled with wild beasts. Some Book of Mormon travel accounts involve the movement of men, women, children, animals, and food stores, while others concern armies in hot pursuit or blind retreat. For purposes of our USDs, travel of children and animals comes under the normal standard—being more susceptible to ground conditions or terrain. Army travel (war speed) is calculated at 150–200 percent of normal (or 1.5–2 times as fast). These estimates are proposed as approximations that will allow us to reconstruct."

I also asked the GPT to provide its own calculation for estimates of foot travel duration relative to distances in ancient settings. Since the response was not much different from Clark's proposed range, I'll be using the GPT's calculations for travel times and distances throughout our analysis.

Zosimus: on average, how far could someone in ancient times walk in one day, assuming a relatively flat terrain. give a range between a low estimate and a high estimate. then provide a range for terrain that is more difficult, whether it be a hilly or mountainous area, or a jungle or wilderness

GPT: On average, in ancient times, the distance someone could walk in one day on relatively flat terrain would vary based on several factors like purpose, physical condition, and whether they were carrying loads.

Flat Terrain:
• Low Estimate: For a leisurely pace with breaks, one could cover about 10 to 15 miles in a day.
• High Estimate: For a more urgent pace, such as a courier or an army on the march, one might cover up to 25 to 30 miles in a day.

When it comes to more challenging terrain such as hilly or mountainous areas, or dense forests and wilderness, progress would be slower due to the need for more frequent breaks, the physical demand of elevation changes, and the additional effort required to navigate through underbrush or uneven ground.

Difficult Terrain:
• Low Estimate: In rugged terrain, one might only be able to cover around 5 to 10 miles in a day.
• High Estimate: If conditions were not too severe and the traveler was determined and perhaps following a path or trail, they might manage to cover up to 15 to 20 miles, but this would be less common and quite strenuous.

These estimates provide a general range, but actual distances would be highly individual and dependent on the specific circumstances of each journey.

[Zosimus]

I've prepared a schematic based on John Clark's estimations of distances (time) between each transect. I've also prepared three maps of the Meso, Malay and Baja geographies with estimations of distances between the transects. I am not well-versed in the locations of places like Bountiful and Moroni in the Meso and Baja models, so if anyone can give me more precise coordinates I can rerun this analysis. 

Also, I wasn't able to make sense of the Heartland and Sri Lanka geographies, the transect lines were criss-crossing or overlapping so it would have been pointless to include them. If anyone can offer some guidance on how these other geographies might look vis a vis Clark's elemental geography I am happy to include them. Again, this is just the first pass at a scoring based on the average speed of a single individual across relatively flat terrain, I'm certain things aren't going to be accurate yet. With time, I plan to allow for variations across geographies and topographies (geospatial convergence), the size and speed of the various parties that traveled the transects in the Book of Mormon, and also chronological and cultural convergences with each transect. These results are rough, as a starting point, and also to narrow down the field to only those geographies that pass the internal geospatial convergence test. The top three geographies are ranked below:

Zosimus: here's a schematic of the land described in the book with estimated distances (time required to walk) between transects. we will use this schematic  to assess alignment between real world geographies and the schematic, paying close attention to the distances/time between transects

GPT-4: You've provided a schematic diagram of the land described in the book, which includes estimated walking times between various transects. To assess the alignment between this schematic and real-world geographies, we should consider both the relative distances and directions indicated by the walking times, as well as geographical features like bodies of water and wilderness areas that may correspond to the West and East Seas, and the narrow neck of land.

In order to provide a detailed analysis, I will need additional context or specific questions regarding the real-world geographies you wish to compare against this schematic. Please provide the names or descriptions of these geographies or any particular aspects you would like to focus on in the comparison.

Zosimus: ok, we will include topographical and geographical features in upcoming assessments, for now let's assume all topographies are relatively flat and that a day of travel is the same across all geographies. here are the three geographies that we will rank:

Baja Peninsula
Malay Peninsula
Isthmus of Tehuantepec

GPT-4: 

Based on the schematic diagram provided and the assumption that all topographies are relatively flat, with a day of travel being the same across all geographies, we can proceed to compare and rank the Baja, Malay, and Meso models according to how closely they align with the distances between transects as described in the book. We will assess the distances in miles and days of walking as given in the models.

For each model, we can evaluate the consistency of travel distances between key points (transects) and see which model best corresponds to the distances described in the schematic.

Baja Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 130 miles or 9 days
Transect 2 to 3: 70 miles or 5 days
Transect 2 to 5: 150 miles or 10 days
Transect 3 to 6: 130 miles or 9 days
Transect 4 to 7: 170 miles or 12 days
Transect 5 to 6: 70 miles or 5 days

Malay Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 80 miles or 5 days
Transect 2 to 3: 30 miles or 2 days
Transect 2 to 5: 170 miles or 12 days
Transect 3 to 6: 200 miles or 14 days
Transect 4 to 7: 180 miles or 12 days
Transect 5 to 6: 130 miles or 9 days

Meso Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 70 miles or 5 days
Transect 2 to 3: 100 miles or 8 days
Transect 2 to 5: 170 miles or 12 days
Transect 3 to 6: 100 miles or 6 days
Transect 4 to 7: 230 miles or 16 days
Transect 5 to 6: 215 miles or 15 days

To rank these models, we would compare these distances to the ones provided in the original schematic of the book's geography. It seems we don't have the original distances in miles, but we have days of walking. If the assumption is that a day of walking translates uniformly across all geographies, we would look for the model whose day-to-day transect distances most closely match the schematic in terms of proportionality and order.

However, it is essential to consider that actual walking distance in miles could vary significantly due to many factors such as terrain, weather, and the presence of paths or roads, which could affect the speed of travel. Since we are assuming flat topography and equal travel conditions, we would prioritize the consistency of the time taken to walk between transects as our ranking criterion.

With the given data and these assumptions, we would need to evaluate the provided distances against the original transect schematic. Since the schematic you referred to in your initial message does not have distances in miles, we can only compare the days of walking. Comparing the days of walking across the three models to the days of walking in the original schematic would give us a ranking of which model fits best.

If you provide the original walking days between each transect as per the book's description, I can proceed with the assessment and ranking.

Zosimus: you can find that here:

• Transect 1 to Transect 3 = 6 days walk
• Transect 2 to Transect 3 = 1.5 days walk
• Transect 2 to Transect 5 = 11 days walk
• Transect 3 to Transect 6 = 6 days walk
• Transect 4 to Transect 7 = 11 days walk
• Transect 5 to Transect 6 = 11 days walk

now let's go one transect at a time. compare the alignment of the three geographies with the control map, but only consider the distance between transect 1 and transect 3. keep track of the rankings for each transect so we can give an overall score after we consider each transect individually

(At this point I asked the GPT to rank each transect for alignment with the control map. This outputted a lot of repetitive text so I will skip to the overall score)

GPT-4: 

To provide an overall score for each model's alignment with the control map, we will average the rankings for each transect comparison that we've done. Here are the scores for each transect:

Baja Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 3/10
Transect 2 to 3: 2/10
Transect 2 to 5: 9/10
Transect 3 to 6: 4/10
Transect 4 to 7: 9/10
Transect 5 to 6: 2/10

Malay Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 9/10
Transect 2 to 3: 9/10
Transect 2 to 5: 9/10
Transect 3 to 6: 2/10
Transect 4 to 7: 9/10
Transect 5 to 6: 7/10

Meso Model:

Transect 1 to 3: 9/10
Transect 2 to 3: 1/10
Transect 2 to 5: 9/10
Transect 3 to 6: 10/10
Transect 4 to 7: 5/10
Transect 5 to 6: 3/10

Now we calculate the average for each:

Baja Model Overall Score: ≈4.8
Malay Model Overall Score: ≈7.5
Meso Model Overall Score: ≈6.2

Therefore, the overall scores for convergence with the control map are:

Baja Model: 4.8/10
Malay Model: 7.5/10
Meso Model: 6.2/10

The Malay Model has the highest overall convergence score with the control map, followed by the Meso Model, with the Baja Model scoring the lowest.

Edited January 30, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

As an example of how we might return more accurate results on the above analysis of distances and travel times in the Book of Mormon, I have found historical accounts of travel times between a few of the Malay transects in ancient times, by elephant and by foot. These were all from reports from the 18th century or earlier, pre-dating modern vehicles and roads.

• Trang to Ligor (70 miles), 3 days by elephant
• Trang to Ligor (70 miles), 3 days 1 night by elephant (Siamese counted their travel days by the number of nights)
• Trang to Ligor (70 miles), 2 days by foot
• Trang to Ligor (70 miles), 4 days by foot
• Kedah to Pattalung (100 miles), 5 days by elephant
• Kedah to Ligor (190 miles), 12 days by elephant
• Kedah to Ligor (190 miles), 12 days by foot (soldier)
• Kedah to Ligor (190 miles), 14 days by elephant
• Kedah eastward across the peninsula (135 miles), 7/8 days by elephant

I then asked GPT to average these, with the following results:

GPT-4: Based on the updated travel times and distances for travel on the ancient Malay Peninsula, the recalculated average speeds are:

By Elephant: Approximately 16.84 miles per day
By Foot: Approximately 18.57 miles per day

These speeds are averages calculated from the specific instances of travel you provided. Keep in mind that these speeds can vary depending on several factors such as terrain, weather conditions, and specific circumstances of each journey.

GPT-4: Based on the average speeds for travel by elephant and by foot on the ancient Malay Peninsula, here are the estimated times required to travel the specified distances:

Transect 1 to Transect 3 (80 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 4.75 days
By Foot: Approximately 4.31 days

Transect 2 to Transect 3 (30 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 1.78 days
By Foot: Approximately 1.62 days

Transect 2 to Transect 5 (170 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 10.10 days
By Foot: Approximately 9.15 days

Transect 3 to Transect 6 (200 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 11.88 days
By Foot: Approximately 10.77 days

Transect 4 to Transect 7 (180 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 10.69 days
By Foot: Approximately 9.69 days

Transect 5 to Transect 6 (130 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 7.72 days
By Foot: Approximately 7.00 days

These estimates are based on the average travel speeds and provide a general idea of the time it might take to cover these distances by elephant and by foot in ancient times. Actual travel times could vary based on specific circumstances and conditions. 

Zosimus: 

let's rerun the analysis with the following data for Malay model. these are the times it took to travel within the Malay Peninsula in ancient times, so the results should be more accurate. Please rerun the scoring for the Malay Model only, using the following:

Transect 1 to Transect 3 (80 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 4.75 days
By Foot: Approximately 4.31 days

Transect 2 to Transect 3 (30 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 1.78 days
By Foot: Approximately 1.62 days

Transect 2 to Transect 5 (170 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 10.10 days
By Foot: Approximately 9.15 days

Transect 3 to Transect 6 (200 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 11.88 days
By Foot: Approximately 10.77 days

Transect 4 to Transect 7 (180 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 10.69 days
By Foot: Approximately 9.69 days

Transect 5 to Transect 6 (130 miles):

By Elephant: Approximately 7.72 days
By Foot: Approximately 7.00 days

GPT-4: 

To rerun the scoring for the Malay Model using the new travel times for both elephant and foot travel, we will average the times for each mode of transportation, and then compare them to the control map's specified times. Let's calculate the average travel time for each transect, and then score them on a scale of 1 to 10 against the control map, where 10 indicates high convergence.

Control Map Times:

Transect 1 to 3: 6 days walk
Transect 2 to 3: 1.5 days walk
Transect 2 to 5: 11 days walk
Transect 3 to 6: 6 days walk
Transect 4 to 7: 11 days walk
Transect 5 to 6: 11 days walk

Malay Model (New Data):

Transect 1 to 3: Average of 4.75 (elephant) and 4.31 (foot) days = 4.53 days
Transect 2 to 3: Average of 1.78 (elephant) and 1.62 (foot) days = 1.70 days
Transect 2 to 5: Average of 10.10 (elephant) and 9.15 (foot) days = 9.63 days
Transect 3 to 6: Average of 11.88 (elephant) and 10.77 (foot) days = 11.33 days
Transect 4 to 7: Average of 10.69 (elephant) and 9.69 (foot) days = 10.19 days
Transect 5 to 6: Average of 7.72 (elephant) and 7.00 (foot) days = 7.36 days

Zosimus: give one score for elephant travel and one score for foot travel

GPT-4: To provide separate scores for elephant travel and foot travel for the Malay Model, we'll score each mode of transportation individually against the control map times, and then calculate the overall scores separately.

Control Map Times:

Transect 1 to 3: 6 days walk
Transect 2 to 3: 1.5 days walk
Transect 2 to 5: 11 days walk
Transect 3 to 6: 6 days walk
Transect 4 to 7: 11 days walk
Transect 5 to 6: 11 days walk

Now, we calculate the overall scores:

Elephant Travel: 7.83/10
Foot Travel: 8.00/10

The scores indicate that the Malay Model aligns slightly better with the control map when considering foot travel compared to elephant travel.

Edited January 30, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

I decided it wasn't fair to leave the other models out just because I didn't know much about them or couldn't make them fit, so I tried my best to find the transects for four more geographies but will retain the disclaimer that I could be off, and appeal to those more familiar with these models to let me know where adjustments are needed. I've added the following:

• Panama
• Heartland
• Costa Rica
• Sri Lanka
• Camara

Some explanation for the last one. The original Malay model was proposed by Ralph Olsen many years ago. Dr. Olsen had placed Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi deep down in the peninsula, too far IMO, from any historical or cultural convergence and also too far from the proposed Hill Cumorah. I made some adjustments to the Malay model and in order to avoid confusion, will call the revised model the Camara Model. The toponym Camara is a reference to one of the names that the peninsula and surrounding islands would have been known during the Book of Mormon time period. Going forward, I will refer to the Malay model as the original model proposed by Ralph Olsen and the Camara model is the revised version with all points set farther north on the peninsula. In the Camara model, only one transect sits in Malaysia, so I think it is fitting to reduce the confusion by avoiding the term Malay altogether. Besides, Camara is fitting in that it has the same consonants as Cumorah, which is the name the land we're looking for would have been known by in the 4th century.

So now for the new scoring with the five new models added:

Zosimus: I have already uploaded a schematic of the land described in the book with estimated distances (time required to walk) between transects. we will use this schematic  to assess alignment between eight real world geographies and the schematic, paying close attention to the distances/time between transects. In addition, here is a stylized map based on the transects and distances described on the schematic, this will be our "control map" to compare against the eight real world geographies, so it should rank 10/10.

GPT-4: The stylized map you've provided, labeled as the "Control Model," features the same transects and distances as the earlier schematic and includes additional visual elements such as major cities or lands, smaller cities or lands, and wilderness areas. It also labels the two seas flanking the isthmus as "Sea West" and "Sea East." This control map is meant to serve as a perfect representation, with a score of 10/10, of the geography described in the historical text.

The inclusion of visual markers for cities and wilderness areas, along with the transects and their corresponding travel times, provides a more tangible representation of the land described. This map establishes a baseline against which other real-world geographical locations will be compared to identify a possible real-world match for the geography described in the historical text.

When comparing real-world geographies to this control model, it will be crucial to assess not only the distances between transects but also the presence and relative positions of geographical features like wilderness areas, bodies of water, and city locations in conjunction with the travel times between transects. This comprehensive approach will be instrumental in the methodical evaluation of possible real-world locations that could correspond to the layout depicted in both the schematic and the control model.

Zosimus: now let's go one transect at a time. compare the alignment of these eight geographies with the control map. keep track of the rankings for each transect so we can give an overall score on a global leaderboard after we consider each transect individually

All the models with their estimated transects and approximate distances can be found here.

(to be continued...)

Edited January 31, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

John Clark's Elemental Geography

To properly compare each model to John Clark's elemental Nephite geography, we need real-world coordinates for each of these transects.

• Transect 1 (Cumorah)
• Transect 2 (Hagoth)
• Transect 3 (Bountiful)
• Transect 4 (Zarahemla)
• Transect 5 (Seashore City)
• Transect 6 (Moroni)
• Transect 7 (Nephi)

Then we estimate the distances between transects for each geography model as best we can. My first attempt to do so for eight different models can be reviewed below. If anyone finds anything that seems off, do let me know and I can adjust before running this all through the GPT. Over time, we'll be able to refine the travel times between transects as we research topographical features and highway/road systems in ancient times for each model.

Transect 1 to Transect 3 (Cumorah to Line Bountiful East)
 

Baja

El Marmol to La Sílica

• 101 miles as crow flies

• 162 km as crow flies

• 214 km or 49 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

Dartmouth (Guatemala) to Cárdenas (Nicaragua)

• 370 miles as crow flies

• 595 km as crow flies

• 802 km or 187 hours walking on Google Map

Heartland

Angola to Hill Cumorah

• 409 miles as crow flies

• 658 km as crow flies

• 729 km or 164 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

Cerro El Vigia to Coatzacoalcos

• 62 miles as crow flies

• 101 km as crow flies

• 144 km or 33 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

Hill Maw (Thailand) to Songkhla (Thailand)

• 335 miles as crow flies

• 539 km as crow flies

• 649 km or 145 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Hill Maw to Khao Sam Kaeo Archeological Site

• 82 miles as crow flies

• 132 km as crow flies

• 149 km or 33 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

Tonosi to Armila

• 220 miles as crow flies

• 355 km as crow flies

• Walking distance not available on Google Maps

Sri Lanka

Madurai to Mantai

• 139 miles as crow flies

• 223 km as crow flies

• Walking distance not available on Google Maps

Transect 2 to Transect 3 (Hagoth Port to Line Bountiful East)

Baja

Santa Rosalita to La Sílica

• 49 miles as crow flies

• 79 km as crow flies

• 119 km or 27 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

Playa Conventillos (Costa Rica) to Cárdenas (Nicaragua)

• 15 miles as crow flies

• 24 km as crow flies

• 36 km or 9 hours walking on Google Maps

Heartland

Warsaw to Merriam

• 173 miles as crow flies

• 279 km as crow flies

• 295 km or 66 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

San Dionisio del Mar to Coatzacoalcos

• 126 miles as crow flies

• 203 km as crow flies

• 287 km or 65 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

La Ngu (Thailand) to Songkhla (Thailand)

• 56 miles as crow flies

• 90 km as crow flies

• 100 km or 22 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Kra Isthmus Marker to Khao Sam Kaeo Archeological Site

• 26 miles as crow flies

• 42 km as crow flies

• 55 km or 12 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

La Plaza to Armila

• 43 miles as crow flies

• 69 km as crow flies

• Walking on Google Maps not available

Sri Lanka

Vankalai to Mantai

• 5 miles as crow flies

• 8 km as crow flies

• 9 km or 2 minutes walking on Google Maps

Transect 2 to Transect 5 (Hagoth Port to Seashore City)

Baja

Santa Rosalita to Ojo de Liebre

• 63 miles as crow flies

• 101 km as crow flies

• 134 km or 30 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

Playa Conventillos (Costa Rica) to El Roble

• 100 miles as crow flies

• 160 km as crow flies

• 186 km or 42 hours walking on Google Maps

Heartland

Warsaw to Memphis

• 469 miles as crow flies

• 755 km as crow flies

• 898 km or 202 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

San Dionisio del Mar to Huixtla

• 173 miles as crow flies

• 278 km as crow flies

• 314 km or 70 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

La Ngu (Thailand) to Sitiawan (Malaysia)

• 193 miles as crow flies

• 310 km as crow flies

• 378 km or 86 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Kra Isthmus Marker to Khlong Thom Museum

• 173 miles as crow flies

• 278 km as crow flies

• 353 km or 79 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

La Plaza to Antado (Columbia)

• 126 miles as crow flies

• 203 km as crow flies

• Walking on Google Maps not available

Sri Lanka

Vankalai to Puttalam

• 60 miles as crow flies

• 96 km as crow flies

• 111 km or 25 hours walking on Google Maps

Transect 3 to Transect 6 (Line Bountiful East to Moroni)

Baja

La Sílica to Santa Ana

• 109 miles as crow flies

• 176 km as crow flies

• 352 km or 79 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

Cárdenas (Nicaragua) to Limon (Costa Rica)

• 188 miles as crow flies

• 303 km as crow flies

• 392 km or 89 hours walking on Google Maps

Heartland

Merriam to New Madrid

• 392 miles as crow flies

• 631 km as crow flies

• 779 km or 175 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

Coatzacoalcos to El Bellote

• 89 miles as crow flies

• 142 km as crow flies

• 243 km or 54 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

Songkhla to Marang

• 226 miles as crow flies

• 363 km as crow flies

• 413 km or 93 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Khao Sam Khao Archeological Site to Kiakkai Archeological Site

• 167 miles as crow flies

• 269 km as crow flies

• 326 km or 73 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

Armila to Montevideo (Columbia)

• 150 miles as crow flies

• 241 km as crow flies

• Walking on Google Maps not available

Sri Lanka

Mantai to Trincomalee

• 90 miles as crow flies

• 144 km as crow flies

• 162 km or 36 hours walking on Google Maps

Transect 4 to Transect 7 (Zarahemla to Nephi)

Baja

La Joya to El Cerrito

• 163 miles as crow flies

• 263 km as crow flies

• 346 km or 78 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

San Jose to Boquete

• 137 miles as crow flies

• 220 km as crow flies

• 361 km or 88 hours walking on Google Maps

Heartland

Nauvoo to Chattanooga

• 505 miles as crow flies

• 813 km as crow flies

• 966 km or 218 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

San Pedrano to Guatemala City

• 159 miles as crow flies

• 255 km as crow flies

• 364 km or 86 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

La Ngu to Sitiawan

• 192 miles as crow flies

• 309 km as crow flies

• 378 km or 86 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Wiang Srah Archeological Site to Tok Nik Tok Leh

• 203 miles as crow flies

• 327 km as crow flies

• 385 km or 86 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

San José Del Buey to Tulua (Columbia)

• 148 miles as crow flies

• 239 km as crow flies

• Walking on Google Maps not available

Sri Lanka

Anuradhapura to Kandy

• 72 miles as crow flies

• 116 km as crow flies

• 135 km or 30 hours walking on Google Maps

Transect 5 to Transect 6 (Seashore City to Moroni)

Baja

Ojo de Liebre to Santa Ana

• 89 miles as crow flies

• 143 km as crow flies

• 221 km or 50 hours walking on Google Maps

Costa Rica

El Roble to Limon

• 115 miles as crow flies

• 185 km as crow flies

• 248 km or 59 hours walking on Google Maps

Heartland

Memphis to New Madrid

• 103 miles as crow flies

• 166 km as crow flies

• 208 km or 46 hours walking on Google Maps

Mesoamerica

Huixtla to El Bellote

• 232 miles as crow flies

• 373 km as crow flies

• 566 km or 131 hours walking on Google Maps

Malay

Sitiawan to Marang

• 186 miles as crow flies

• 300 km as crow flies

• 428 km or 98 hours walking on Google Maps

Camara

Khlong Thom Archeological Site to Kiakkai Archeological Site

• 63 miles as crow flies

• 101 km as crow flies

• 123 km or 28 hours walking on Google Maps

Panama

Antado (Columbia) to Montevideo (Columbia)

• 144 miles as crow flies

• 232 km as crow flies

• Walking on Google Maps not available

Sri Lanka

Puttalam to Trincomalee

• 102 miles as crow flies

• 165 km as crow flies

• 180 km or 40 hours walking on Google Maps

Edited February 4, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

Baseline Model: John Clark's Elemental Geography

• Transect 1 (Cumorah) to Transect 3 (Line Bountiful): 6 days
• Transect 2 (Hagoth) to Transect 3 (Line Bountiful): 1 to 1.5 days (as indicated in the Book of Mormon)
• Transect 2 (Hagoth) to Transect 5 (Seashore City): 11 days
• Transect 3 (Line Bountiful) to Transect 6 (Moroni): 6 days
• Transect 4 (Zarahemla) to Transect 7 (Nephi): 11 days
• Transect 5 (Seashore City) to Transect 6 (Moroni): 11 days
   

I decided it'd be more precise and consistent to use GPS coordinates for all transects in the models. Below is the data I dumped into the GPT. Will follow this post up with the deviation from the baseline for each model.
 

---

 

Baja Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

• Transect 1: El Marmol, 29.99867221226473, -114.7133107150897
• Transect 2: Santa Rosalita, 28.71613497151427, -114.23098461396276
• Transect 3: La Sílica, 29.038503350900097, -113.56569242386516
• Transect 4: San Ignacio, 27.282653526379807, -112.89661973802289
• Transect 5: Ojo de Liebre, 27.745090112526707, -113.8912210618556
• Transect 6: Santa Ana, 27.66295215958164, -112.59932240792779
• Transect 7:  El Cerrito, 25.32082503394238, -111.4594410747188

Walking time Between Transects (Direct)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 3.85 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.85 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 2.82 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 4.49 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 6.51 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 3.19 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 5.625 days or 45 hr (202 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 3.375 days or 27 hr (119 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 4.125 days or 33 hr (146 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 10 days or 80 hr (356 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 9.625 days or 77 hr (342 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 6.375 days or 51 hr (226 km)

---

 

Comoro Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

• Transect 1: Hill Maw Waterfall National Park, 11.598302017630267, 99.55832961508473
• Transect 2: Kra Isthmus Marker, 10.468025627931885, 98.8090574018788
• Transect 3: Khao Sam Kaeo archeological site, 10.53091476864448, 99.18551833958097
• Transect 4: Wiang Sera archeological site, 8.655778795220073, 99.29188580215076
• Transect 5: Khlong Thom archeological site, 7.928713184763679, 99.1482457049277
• Transect 6: Kiakkai archeological site, 8.285877814885769, 99.99656512711708
• Transect 7: Raman (Tok Nik Tok Leh), 6.4806932774826045, 101.4246286593398

Walking time Between Transects (Direct)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 3.12 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.04 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 7.08 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 6.60 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 8.41 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 2.54 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 4 days or 32 hr (143 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.6 days or 12 hr 50 min (57.3 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 9.875 days or 79 hr (353 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 9.25 days or 74 hr (327 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 11.25 days or 90 hr (399 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 3.5 days or 28 hr (123 km)

---

 

Costa Rica Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

Transect 1: Dartmouth (Guatemala), 15.516415178572954, -88.78307728618587

Transect 2: Playa Conventillos (Costa Rica), 11.07722770742854, -85.68966428161517

Transect 3: Cárdenas (Nicaragua), 11.200933841765046, -85.51038987769365

Transect 4: San Jose (Costa Rica), 9.933264578105073, -84.07225967933321

Transect 5: El Roble (Costa Rica), 9.974222616743056, -84.75054171037543

Transect 6: Limon (Costa Rica), 9.989504199702626, -83.03382739000104

Transect 7: Boquete (Panama), 8.796864315005676, -82.489311082656

 

Walking time Between Transects (Direct):

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 14.87 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 0.60 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 3.99 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 7.56 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 5.36 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 4.71 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 23.375 days or 187 hr (802 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.073 days or 8 hr 35 min (36.5 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 5.25 days or 42 hr (186 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 11.125 days or 89 hr (393 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 11.125 days or 89 hr (363 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 7.5 days or 60 hr (250 km)

---

 

Heartland Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

 

Transect 1: Hill Cumorah Visitor's Center, 43.0069258625256, -77.22606646280288

Transect 2: Warsaw, 41.23279658424043, -85.85064158251664

Transect 3: Merriam, 41.286680886416804, -85.43439375103415

Transect 4: Nauvoo, 40.539990976447065, -91.44461696263502

Transect 5: Memphis, 35.147714220094564, -90.04192678468216

Transect 6: New Madrid, 36.59612954999897, -89.52366544095612

Transect 7: Chattanooga, 35.05608246424212, -85.30640711885111

 

Walking time Between Transects (Direct):

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 17.61 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 0.88 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 19.21 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 15.74 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 20.34 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 4.18 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 21.5 days or 172 hr (475 miles)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.167 days or 9 hr 20 min (25.7 miles)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 25.25 days or 202 hr (557 miles)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 21.875 days or 175 hr (484 miles)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 27.25 days or 218 hr (600 miles)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 5.875 days or 47 hr (130 miles)

---

 

Malay Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

 

Transect 1: Hill Maw (Huay Yang Waterfall National Park), 11.598302017630267, 99.55832961508473

Transect 2: La Ngu,  6.8682187408222335, 99.79109822771488

Transect 3: Songkhla, 7.196494678889296, 100.59076260078926

Transect 4: Tanah Merah, 5.809593955253863, 102.14478431642745

Transect 5: Sitiawan, 4.214608832269643, 100.69717334718179

Transect 6: Marang, 5.206991673182849, 103.20464584692718

Transect 7: Lake Chini, Pahang, 3.4357453382501424, 102.93100540175814

 

Walking time Between Transects:

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 12.50 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 2.39 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 7.75 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 9.09 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 6.92 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 7.48 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 17.375 days or 139 hr (618 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 3.625 days or 29 hr (128 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 10.875 days or 87 hr (386 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 11.75 days or 94 hr (414 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 11.375 days or 91 hr (404 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 12.25 days or 98 hr (429 km)

---

 

Mesoamerica Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

 

Transect 1: Cerro El Vigia, 18.45756242107759, -95.34922736178396

Transect 2: San Dionisio del Mar, 16.324223415140434, -94.7564724188698

Transect 3: Coatzacoalcos, 18.13272870544997, -94.45584785740164

Transect 4: San Paraíso del Grijalva, 16.225452010028878, -92.64456684846789

Transect 5: Huixtla, 15.137016664096492, -92.46597849093655

Transect 6: El Bellote, 18.42527786599588, -93.15316845880719

Transect 7: Archaeological Center Kaminaljuyu, 14.631928316955554, -90.5483077986215

 

Walking time Between Transects (Direct):

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 2.53 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 5.07 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 6.96 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 3.54 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 7.15 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 9.28 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 4.125 days or 33 hr (144 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 8.125 days or 65 hr (287 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 8.75 days or 70 hr (314 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 6.75 days or 54 hr (242 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 12.0 days or 96 hr (402 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 16.375 days or 131 hr (566 km)

---

 

Panama Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

 

Transect 1: Tonosi (Panama), 7.3865255669168866, -80.41852611491892

Transect 2: La Plaza (Panama), 8.40088252198794, -78.0222318838422

Transect 3: Armila (Panama), 8.662264998292075, -77.45060598303446

Transect 4: San José Del Buey (Colombia), 6.108354560596917, -76.83742698313614

Transect 5: Antado (Columbia), 6.682215652031989, -77.33272186458709

Transect 6: Montevideo (Colombia), 7.699912142057465, -75.4835845445089

Transect 7: Tulua (Columbia), 4.086513098100332, -76.19678214574029

 

Walking time Between Transects (Direct)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 8.91 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 1.73 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 5.12 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 6.04 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 5.86 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 5.83 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: Data not available
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: Data not available
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: Data not available
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: Data not available
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: Data not available
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: Data not available

---

 

Sri Lanka Model

Transect GPS Coordinates

Transect 1: Madurai (India), 9.919863485053721, 78.11973266310343

Transect 2: Vankalai (Sri Lanka), 8.894251117867892, 79.93436148254366

Transect 3: Mantai (Sri Lanka), 8.949965130031169, 79.9662184211498

Transect 4: Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka), 8.309333102024002, 80.4044002855623

Transect 5: Puttalam (Sri Lanka), 8.035663389463293, 79.83445482795337

Transect 6: Trincomalee (Sri Lanka), 8.583546593668624, 81.21270063102007

Transect 7: Kandy (Sri Lanka), 7.2902254375255024, 80.63320954532426

 

Walking time Between Transects (Direct)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 5.74 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 0.18 days
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 2.39 days
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 3.58 days
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 2.89 days
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 4.09 days

Walking time Between Transects (Google Maps API)

• Transect 1 to Transect 3: 6.25 days or 50 hr (220 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 3: 0.25 days or 2 hr (8.9 km)
• Transect 2 to Transect 5: 3.125 days or 25 hr (111 km)
• Transect 3 to Transect 6: 4.5 days or 36 hr (162 km)
• Transect 4 to Transect 7: 3.875 days or 31 hr (135 km)
• Transect 5 to Transect 6: 5.0 days or 40 hr (180 km)

Edited February 7, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

Average Deviation for Google Map Walking Distances

The models ranked from lowest average deviation to highest average deviation are as follows:

1. Comoro Model: 2.41 days
2. Mesoamerica Model: 3.02 days
3. Baja Model: 3.23 days
4. Malay Model: 3.54 days
5. Sri Lanka Model: 3.96 days
6. Costa Rica Model: 5.34 days
7. Heartland Model: 11.18 days

This ranking shows the Comoro Model as having the least deviation from the baseline, indicating it aligns more closely with the baseline expectations, while the Heartland Model has the highest deviation, indicating a larger departure from baseline expectations.

Median Deviation for Google Map Walking Distances

The models ranked from lowest median deviation to highest median deviation are:

1. Comoro Model: 1.56 days
2. Malay Model: 1.82 days
3. Mesoamerica Model: 2.06 days
4. Baja Model: 3.06 days
5. Sri Lanka Model: 3.75 days
6. Costa Rica Model: 4.31 days
7. Heartland Model: 14.88 days

This ranking indicates that the Comoro Model has the lowest median deviation from the baseline, suggesting it aligns more closely with the median expectations of the baseline. In contrast, the Heartland Model has the highest median deviation, indicating a larger departure from the median expectations of the baseline.

Average Deviation for Straight Line Walking Distances

The models, listed from lowest average deviation to highest average deviation, are as follows:

1. Comoro Model: Average deviation of 3.11 days
2. Mesoamerica Model: Average deviation of 3.23 days
3. Panama Model: Average deviation of 3.27 days
4. Malay Model: Average deviation of 3.60 days
5. Baja Model: Average deviation of 4.12 days
6. Sri Lanka Model: Average deviation of 4.56 days
7. Costa Rica Model: Average deviation of 5.00 days
8. Heartland Model: Average deviation of 7.68 days

This list ranks the models by how their deviations compare to the baseline, with the lowest deviations suggesting closer alignment with the baseline's expected values.

Median Deviation for Straight Line Walking Distances

The models, listed from lowest median deviation to highest median deviation, are as follows:

1. Comoro Model: Median deviation of 2.74 days
2. Baja Model: Median deviation of 3.32 days
3. Malay Model: Median deviation of 3.39 days
4. Mesoamerica Model: Median deviation of 3.65 days
5. Panama Model: Median deviation of 4.03 days
6. Sri Lanka Model: Median deviation of 4.67 days
7. Costa Rica Model: Median deviation of 5.97 days
8. Heartland Model: Median deviation of 8.78 days

This list ranks the models by the median of their deviations, providing a perspective that minimizes the impact of outliers in the deviation data.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Zosimus

[Calm]

I am impressed by all the effort you are putting into this.

[Zosimus]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am impressed by all the effort you are putting into this.

Appreciate that, hopefully some day it will be useful somewhere

[Zosimus]

We have designated the NE and NW corners of the land we are trying to identify as the [Hagoth Transect] and the [Bountiful Transect], respectively. These points define an east-west line described in the Book that traversed the narrow neck separating the land northward from the land southward.

 

The [Hagoth Transect] marks the place where a shipbuilder built large ocean-going ships. This is also the transect where adventurous groups embarked on their journeys from the west sea to lands northward. The [Bountiful Transect] was near the land of [Bountiful] and north of the city of [Bountiful]. This northern border of the territory is one of the most poorly known and controversial transects that we will consider. The Book apparently specifies precise travel times for this area. The critical requirements for this transect are listed below.

 

We'll next go through each model to check for the following

 

Baseline Checklist: Hagoth (Transect 2) to Bountiful (Transect 3)

• Shipbuilding in 55 BC
• Near a narrow pass leading from south to north
• 1 to 1.5 days to travel from west sea to an eastern point on defensive line
• Fortified defensive line is a natural boundary like river or mountain
• Near the sea, or a large river that leads to the sea
• West sea may have been a natural port, inlet or embayment
• Large ships can be launched without difficulty
• Ideal access to northern maritime shipping routes
• Well known migration path to the north
• Trade/provisions to the north
• Archaeological evidence of two settlements dating to Book of Mormon period
• Near borders of two distinct lands
• One land is left desolate due to human occupation
• [Bountiful] city one day to south of eastern shore
• Relatively flat terrain

Edited February 8, 2024 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

We'll next go through each model to check for the following

Zosimus: As noted in the GPT instructions, our goal is to identify the real world location of a land described in a historical text dating from 600 BC to the early 5th century AD book. We have identified 7 transects to help us map out the general shape and borders of the land. In addition, the text provides some textual descriptions of different topographical features through the land such as mountains/hills, bodies of water, wildernesses, inlets, and rivers. We also find some descriptions of settlements or cities along with some passages discussing trade, shipping, metallurgy, and weights and measures. As an example, here's a list of unique features described in the book in relation to the area between Transect 2 and Transect 3:

• Shipbuilding in 55 BC
• Near a narrow pass leading from south to north
• 1 to 1.5 days to travel from west sea to an eastern point on defensive line
• Fortified defensive line is a natural boundary like river or mountain
• Near the sea, or a large river that leads to the sea
• West sea at Transect 2 may have been a natural port, inlet or embayment
• Large ships known to launch here historically
• Notable access to northern maritime trading/shipping routes to a land northward
• Notable maritime migration path to a land northward
• Archaeological evidence of two settlements dating to Book of Mormon period
• Near borders of two distinct lands
• One land is left 'desolate' due to human occupation
• Defensive city one day to south of eastern shore
• Relatively flat terrain

What methodology do you recommend for scoring the different geography models for their alignment with the geography and material culture described in the book?

GPT-4: 

To systematically evaluate the different models and determine their alignment with the descriptions provided in the book, I recommend employing a multi-step methodology that combines quantitative scoring with qualitative assessment. This approach will allow you to compare various geographical models based on specific criteria derived from the descriptions of cities, topographical features, and transects mentioned in the book. Here's a structured methodology you can follow:

1. Define Evaluation Criteria
First, establish a set of criteria based on the descriptions provided in the book. These criteria should cover:

• Geographical Features: Such as the presence of narrow necks (isthmuses), seas (east and west), plains, highlands, rivers, and lakes.
• Location and Distance of Cities: Relative positions and distances between cities (e.g., the Southern City, Central City, Defensive City) and their proximity to geographical features.
• Transect Data: Information provided through the seven transects, including GPS coordinates, walking times, and any specific landmarks or features mentioned.
• Historical Context: Consideration of flora, fauna, metallurgy, military, transportation, and apparel that match the time period described in the book (2500 BC to 420 AD).

2. Score Each Model Quantitatively
Assign a numerical score to each model based on how well it aligns with each criterion. For instance:

• Exact Match: 3 points
• Partial Match: 2 points
• Minimal Match: 1 point
• No Match: 0 points

This scoring system should be applied consistently across all models for each criterion.

3. Qualitative Assessment
In addition to quantitative scoring, conduct a qualitative assessment of each model. This involves evaluating:

• Coherence: How well the model integrates all pieces of evidence into a cohesive geographical framework.
• Plausibility: The model's consistency with known historical, archaeological, and geographical data.
• Specificity: The degree to which the model can pinpoint unique features or locations described in the book, beyond general similarities.

4. Calculate Overall Scores
Sum the scores for each model across all criteria to get an overall score. This provides a quantitative basis for comparison.

5. Rank the Models
Rank the models based on their overall scores. Use the qualitative assessments to make final judgments, especially in cases where models have similar scores.

6. Review and Sensitivity Analysis
Review the rankings for consistency and conduct a sensitivity analysis by adjusting the weight of certain criteria based on their importance or confidence level. This step ensures that the model selection is robust against subjective biases or uncertainties in the data.

7. Final Evaluation
Combine the quantitative rankings with the qualitative assessments to select the model(s) that best fit the descriptions provided in the book. This final evaluation should consider both the strength of the evidence and the coherence of the model with the book's descriptions.

Documentation and Justification
For transparency and to facilitate further research, document the rationale behind the scoring and the selection process. This includes justifying the weights assigned to different criteria, the decision-making process in qualitative assessments, and any assumptions made during the evaluation.

This methodology offers a structured approach to evaluating different geographical models based on their alignment with historical texts, allowing for an informed and balanced analysis.

[The Nehor]

Now ask ChatGPT if it is sure about its last answer.

[Zosimus]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now ask ChatGPT if it is sure about its last answer.

Seems reasonable to me. Any reason why its not a reasonable response, or methodology?