Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Ancient smelted bronze tools, and slag - Peru metallurgy


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the evidence in that new find, but it is not earth shattering. It has been known for some time that metallurgy existed in Central America. Ovens believed to have been used for making copper alloy were found in Mexico. Gold-copper alloy artifacts are plentiful. What is still in contention is whether there was any steel metallurgy. Slag has been found at other ancient sites, but it is generally just not taken seriously that it could be from ancient steel production. However, with the acknowledgment that smelting technology did exist, that likelihood creeps closer. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for the evidence in that new find, but it is not earth shattering. It has been known for some time that metallurgy existed in Central America. Ovens believed to have been used for making copper alloy were found in Mexico. Gold-copper alloy artifacts are plentiful. What is still in contention is whether there was any steel metallurgy. Slag has been found at other ancient sites, but it is generally just not taken seriously that it could be from ancient steel production. However, with the acknowledgment that smelting technology did exist, that likelihood creeps closer. 

You're aware of the translation issues with steel, yes?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

I found this interesting in light of conventional  science proclaiming no metallurgy in ancient America.   Thoughts?

Note that this is circa 800 AD so much too late to be relevant for the Book of Mormon era. Still it is interesting. 

We don't know where the text took place. Most assume mesoAmerica due to it having writing there. The problem there is that metal isn't found in the relevant regions in the relevant time frames. Some aspects of the problem can be dealt with such as steel in the KJV actually being copper. But then you still have the problem of copper tool use in the relevant local and time frame.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're aware of the translation issues with steel, yes?

Do you mean God didn't know what was meant by using the word steel in the early 19th century? No, I am not aware of any "translation" issues in that regard. Did Joseph use a seer stone or a Urim and Thummim seems to be the major issue. There was bronze and then there was steel or iron - that had been the case for over 2000 years. I do realize that what was steel then might not be considered steel now. Smelting iron did take about 200 deg more heat, but carbon could be added to steel without fully smelting it in the forging process, which is what was done at first. The art of making crucible steel seems to have arisen in the Middle East, although it is possible it arose in Africa. It certainly hit the world scene from the Middle East, and supported the rise of Islam. Either process produced slag. Find the slag, and you have a very good indicator - actually one of the best, since the forging process usually destroyed the crucibles and even the ovens - further, non-crucible iron just didn't last. There are few surviving examples dating to BoM times, because it just rusts away. But the slag impurities are a strong piece of evidence. Dating the slag becomes the issue. Unfortunately, the only finds I know of in N. America are too disturbed for modern dating methods. But there has been some finds - they are just dismissed because "everyone knows the Indians did not have steel." However, modern archaeology has forced the world to admit that Native Americans did have tumbaga and other alloys, and therefore had the smelting technology to produce those alloys. That technology produces enough heat to forge iron, and produce slag. The natives were also intimately familiar with red ochre and used it. Put that and smelting ovens together, and you get.... forged iron. Put that together with evidence that smelting technology may have been guarded as a secret, and you get a good probability that at least some Pre-Columbian Americans knew of "steel." 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you mean God didn't know what was meant by using the word steel in the early 19th century? 

The issue is the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV. The KJV is mistranslated in many places yet the BoM follows the misleading (in terms of 19th century language) or wrong texts. So the fact the KJV uses the word steel for copper in various passages may well have been taken up by the BoM.  One might think God wouldn't use KJV quotations or paraphrases to translate a different text (certainly critics argue that) however it's undeniable that is what he did. So the issue isn't what God knew but what he did.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you mean God didn't know what was meant by using the word steel in the early 19th century? No, I am not aware of any "translation" issues in that regard. Did Joseph use a seer stone or a Urim and Thummim seems to be the major issue. There was bronze and then there was steel or iron - that had been the case for over 2000 years. I do realize that what was steel then might not be considered steel now. Smelting iron did take about 200 deg more heat, but carbon could be added to steel without fully smelting it in the forging process, which is what was done at first. The art of making crucible steel seems to have arisen in the Middle East, although it is possible it arose in Africa. It certainly hit the world scene from the Middle East, and supported the rise of Islam. Either process produced slag. Find the slag, and you have a very good indicator - actually one of the best, since the forging process usually destroyed the crucibles and even the ovens - further, non-crucible iron just didn't last. There are few surviving examples dating to BoM times, because it just rusts away. But the slag impurities are a strong piece of evidence. Dating the slag becomes the issue. Unfortunately, the only finds I know of in N. America are too disturbed for modern dating methods. But there has been some finds - they are just dismissed because "everyone knows the Indians did not have steel." However, modern archaeology has forced the world to admit that Native Americans did have tumbaga and other alloys, and therefore had the smelting technology to produce those alloys. That technology produces enough heat to forge iron, and produce slag. The natives were also intimately familiar with red ochre and used it. Put that and smelting ovens together, and you get.... forged iron. Put that together with evidence that smelting technology may have been guarded as a secret, and you get a good probability that at least some Pre-Columbian Americans knew of "steel." 

Not quite. Steel the word doesn't mean what folks think it means. In the OT, king James version, it means bronze in some places, for example. Our expectations need to be tempered. Our assumptions adjusted.

And that keeps the fun coming.😄

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Do you mean God didn't know what was meant by using the word steel in the early 19th century? No, I am not aware of any "translation" issues in that regard. Did Joseph use a seer stone or a Urim and Thummim seems to be the major issue. There was bronze and then there was steel or iron - that had been the case for over 2000 years. I do realize that what was steel then might not be considered steel now. Smelting iron did take about 200 deg more heat, but carbon could be added to steel without fully smelting it in the forging process, which is what was done at first. The art of making crucible steel seems to have arisen in the Middle East, although it is possible it arose in Africa. It certainly hit the world scene from the Middle East, and supported the rise of Islam. Either process produced slag. Find the slag, and you have a very good indicator - actually one of the best, since the forging process usually destroyed the crucibles and even the ovens - further, non-crucible iron just didn't last. There are few surviving examples dating to BoM times, because it just rusts away. But the slag impurities are a strong piece of evidence. Dating the slag becomes the issue. Unfortunately, the only finds I know of in N. America are too disturbed for modern dating methods. But there has been some finds - they are just dismissed because "everyone knows the Indians did not have steel." However, modern archaeology has forced the world to admit that Native Americans did have tumbaga and other alloys, and therefore had the smelting technology to produce those alloys. That technology produces enough heat to forge iron, and produce slag. The natives were also intimately familiar with red ochre and used it. Put that and smelting ovens together, and you get.... forged iron. Put that together with evidence that smelting technology may have been guarded as a secret, and you get a good probability that at least some Pre-Columbian Americans knew of "steel." 

Some of Mesoamerica’s metallurgists at the time of the Spanish conquest wore what they called "steel" helmets. However, what they called "steel" was actually a meteoric nickel-iron alloy, which was available in Mesoamerica (Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 283).
It is likely that during the translation of the Book of Mormon the best modern-day English word that could be used to represent the metal spoken of was "steel", even though it's composition may not have been anything like the steel we use today. 

Link to comment

Civilizations have risen and fell based on building materials.  Stone age(Mayan stone pyramids etc.), then copper, then learn about alloys - bronze, then somehow get up to 1600°C (or find a meteorite) iron - cast iron ... the difference between a high-strength steel that could be used in a sword, and a worthless brittle chunk of cast iron?  just a teenie tiny little bit of carbon and impurities... 

PhaseDiagram.jpg

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One does not need smelting technology in order to make high quality steel.  One need only do what Japanese Samurai sword (katana) producers still do today: Create a bloom of iron (softened) in a clay furnace with bellows (as Nephi did in 1 Ne 17:11).  Once the red hot bloom has been obtained, it can then be worked by the blacksmith by repeatedly beating, heating in charcoal, and quenching, in a cycle which adds carbon to the red hot iron, in layers, until one has a high carbon steel sword (or other weapon or tool).  

 

I actually saw this process on CSI Miami Last week. 

Thanks for verifying it.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, changed said:

Civilizations have risen and fell based on building materials.  Stone age(Mayan stone pyramids etc.), then copper, then learn about alloys - bronze, then somehow get up to 1600°C (or find a meteorite) iron - cast iron ... the difference between a high-strength steel that could be used in a sword, and a worthless brittle chunk of cast iron?  just a teenie tiny little bit of carbon and impurities... ...........................................

It is unnecessary to reach a temp of 1600°C.  The correct bloomery procedure is currently done in England (https://www.wealdeniron.org.uk/Expt/smelt.htm ) and in Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing ), just as it was done anciently.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue is the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV. The KJV is mistranslated in many places yet the BoM follows the misleading (in terms of 19th century language) or wrong texts. So the fact the KJV uses the word steel for copper in various passages may well have been taken up by the BoM.  One might think God wouldn't use KJV quotations or paraphrases to translate a different text (certainly critics argue that) however it's undeniable that is what he did. So the issue isn't what God knew but what he did.

 

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Not quite. Steel the word doesn't mean what folks think it means. In the OT, king James version, it means bronze in some places, for example. Our expectations need to be tempered. Our assumptions adjusted.

And that keeps the fun coming.😄

The problem with asserting that "steel" may have referred to bronze or copper is that the BoM uses the term steel as a descriptor for several things which had "rusted." Good bronze just won't rust away. It will corrode very slowly. Nephi's sword rusted in the desert journey, and broke. The Hejaz of Arabia is known for rusting steel quickly - cars don''t typically last long unless well coated. The Jaredite sword had rusted and only left a hilt. These things are described as steel, and Nephi is described as collecting iron ore.

Then you have: 

2 Nephi 5:15

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to workin all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

This verse differentiates between copper and steel - So trying to make the Nephite swords bronze or macuahuitl just doesn't fly with me.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Some of Mesoamerica’s metallurgists at the time of the Spanish conquest wore what they called "steel" helmets. However, what they called "steel" was actually a meteoric nickel-iron alloy, which was available in Mesoamerica (Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 283).
It is likely that during the translation of the Book of Mormon the best modern-day English word that could be used to represent the metal spoken of was "steel", even though it's composition may not have been anything like the steel we use today. 

Meteoritic iron is actually high quality steel because of the nickel. Stainless steel has a good bit of nickel. It's an alloy which doesn't rust much. I wouldn't hesitate to call it steel. And yes, natives knew about it and used it. There are tool artifacts of meteoritic iron throughout the Americas, but it doesn't meet the "plentiful" criteria of the BoM. Iron ore all over the place is a good descriptor for bog iron. That was had in abundance in certain places in the Americas. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One does not need smelting technology in order to make high quality steel.  One need only do what Japanese Samurai sword (katana) producers still do today: Create a bloom of iron (softened) in a clay furnace with bellows (as Nephi did in 1 Ne 17:11).  Once the red hot bloom has been obtained, it can then be worked by the blacksmith by repeatedly beating, heating in charcoal, and quenching, in a cycle which adds carbon to the red hot iron, in layers, until one has a high carbon steel sword (or other weapon or tool).  There is nothing mysterious about this, and high carbon steel was normally produced in the Middle East already a thousand years before Laban had a fine steel sword of his own.

This is one of the main points of my post above: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71872-ancient-smelted-bronze-tools-and-slag-peru-metallurgy/?do=findComment&comment=1209906552 

I am sure iron working came about in the bronze age by sticking red ochre a little longer in the copper smelting ovens and finding that after the impurities sparked off as slag, that an iron bloom could be had. They then learned they could get rid of more impurities by hammering the bloom. Clearly this is the type of steel forging the BoM is talking about. I wouldn't call it "high quality steel."  Carbon steel too was probably found by accident as a result of some carbon from charcoal getting incorporated into the bloom. There is a known site just on the Jordan side of the Jordan River where slag has been found. The site dates back old enough to be active during the Assyrian wars: https://archive.archaeology.org/0001/newsbriefs/iron.html  Again, this place was active early enough to even have been the forge for Nephi's original steel sword. However, it was obviously of a lower quality iron - the same as what the Jaredite's would have had. 

The step forward with crucible steel was to incorporate the carbon source with the iron ore, and then heat the crucible up to smelting temperature - a couple hundred degrees higher than needed to smelt copper.  The impurities or slag were then easily separated when the crucible was opened to remove the steel ingot. This steel became the basis for the superior light weight Muslim swords which could break the swords of the crusaders. These types of swords still survive today. The early forged swords are few and very far between because they simply rusted away - even in the desert environment of the Middle East. How anyone could expect one to survive in the humid environment of the Americas is beyond me.

 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such technology need not have been common in Mesoamerica, which may be why we have not found evidence of it.  In many cases, the "swords" we read about in the Book of Mormon are probably the same macuahuitls which the Spanish soldiers later called "swords' when they arrived to conquer Mexico.  After all, they were just as sharp as any steel sword could be -- indeed, the obsidian which they featured is even sharper than modern surgical steel.  A Mexican warrior could lop off the head of a horse in one swing.

The macuahuitls were indeed a formidable weapon - very capable of inflicting extreme damage. They would be the logical choice for those who have lost steel making technology - perhaps explaining the swords of the Lamanites. There is a location where probable smelting ovens were covered with cement - consistent with an effort to hide the technology. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A millennium before Nephi, of course, the Jaredites/Olmecs made extensive use of iron, but we have no evidence that they heated it or used it to make any weapons.  We only know of tons of beads and mirrors (especially magnetite mirrors) found in their cities.  Mike Coe even reported on his test of an Olmec compass pointer, probably the first magnetic compass ever made on this planet. There is still a lot we do not know.

There is evidence for the smelting of copper. Heating copper causes air bubbles to form which are visible in radiographic scans. Copper artifacts in American museums have been found to have these tell-tale bubbles. Also ovens have been found. The debate becomes were these smelting ovens? Or used to make pottery? Well when large gold and copper ingots are found on site, the "plot" thickens. When slag is found at other nearby sites, then the plot thickens more. Why do we have to learn about these things from "amateurs" rather than professional archaeologists? Maybe something called manifest destiny got in the way, and helped form the official view of primitive peoples lacking technology. There were other technological advances which I believe are consistent and accepted, but not "steel making." Why? Probably because when Europeans came, there were no steel implements seen. One of my points is if forged steel was indeed used, any such swords made 2000 years ago would have long since rusted away. Trying to make steel mean bronze like some are implying only makes matters worse, because we would expect to find many bronze swords - not so with forged steel. Like you and I have said - the technology is just not that far advanced from the bronze age technology, and we know it existed in the Levant in Nephi's day. The BoM says steel because it means steel - not copper and not bronze.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

The problem with asserting that "steel" may have referred to bronze or copper is that the BoM uses the term steel as a descriptor for several things which had "rusted." Good bronze just won't rust away. It will corrode very slowly. Nephi's sword rusted in the desert journey, and broke. The Hejaz of Arabia is known for rusting steel quickly - cars don''t typically last long unless well coated. The Jaredite sword had rusted and only left a hilt. These things are described as steel, and Nephi is described as collecting iron ore.

Then you have: 

2 Nephi 5:15

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to workin all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

This verse differentiates between copper and steel - So trying to make the Nephite swords bronze or macuahuitl just doesn't fly with me.

Interesting that you choose this particular verse, which has to do with commerce and wealth creation through artistic endeavors. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Isaiah 54:16 (=3 Nephi 22:16) describes the method typically used to create an iron bloom and thus steel, which is apparently the method used by Nephi at BOUNTIFUL (1 Nephi 17:10-11).  There is no reason why the Sword of Laban could not have been as fine in quality as the dagger found in King Tut's tomb.

A Mormon who is a metallurgical engineer (David S.) commented on the Bill Hamblin and Kevin Barney notion that mention of a “steel” bow in First Nephi follows KJV usage of “steel” as a translation for “bronze.”[1]  That metallurgical engineer objected that he had “never had a problem with the steel bow of Nephi.  Everything he says about it seems entirely plausible.”  He sees no problem at all in making steel (iron with .1 to 1.8 % carbon) using technology available to Nephi.  One could take high grade ore (or meteoric iron), heat and soften it in a very hot fire, with charcoal (for case hardening), through the bloom process, and obtain a couple of “springs” of steel, which would then be connected together at the grip.  Such a bow would require perhaps an 80 - 100 pound pull, while a common wooden bow has a pull of 20 - 30 pounds.[2]

This would therefore have been a composite bow, which could be constructed of various materials,[3] including steel – which had been manufactured in South Arabia already centuries before the arrival of Lehi & Clan.[4]  Moreover, bronze models of bows, arrows, and quivers have been found recently in Oman dating to that same early period (Iron II).[5]


[1] Kevin Barney, “On Nephi’s Steel Bow,” ByCommonConsent, Feb 20, 2006, online at http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/20/on-nephis-steel-bow/ .

[2] David S, ByCommonConsent, March 15, 2006, at 9:25 pm, comment online at  http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/20/on-nephis-steel-bow/ .

[3] C. N. Hickman, “Ancient Composite Bows,” Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, 2 (1959), online at http://web.archive.org/web/20060929092301/http://tilde.snt.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/ ancient_composites/ ; D. Elmy, “Steel Bows in India,” Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquarians, 12 (1969), online at http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/steelbow/steelbow.html .

[4] Cf. Gus W. Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a PreIslamic Site in South Arabia.  Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man 5 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969).

[5] CNRS,  “First non-utilitarian weapons found in the Arabian Peninsula,” ScienceDaily, March 10, 2016, online at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080816.htm .

While I can agree that the term steel is perhaps not always the best translation for the metal being described in the KJV, again trying to argue that the steel in the BoM is really brass is not consistent with the text. While the weaker bronze may break on Nephi, there are several places in the text which talk about steel rusting. If the Nephites made bronze bows and bronze swords, we would expect to find them because of the slow rate of decay of bronze. No bronze = not very likely that bronze was the "steel" of the BoM. Arguing for it, is really arguing against the BoM in more ways than one. If you want to argue that there was high quality steel in the Levant in Nephi's day, I haven't seen evidence for it. Here is a steel sword found in Jericho:

image.png.3b4132555bc3e7480c2f1dd213f9b10e.pngNot exactly "high quality" carbon steel. The vast majority of swords just did not survive, because they rusted away.

I really don't know what King Tut's dagger was made of. Presumably it is carbon steel, but then his tomb had about the only existing ancient chariots as well. It's locale sealed out humidity and the environment. I am not arguing carbon steel was not to be had, but it was still generally of inferior quality to crucible steel. The bloom had to be quenched and folded over many times to incorporate the carbon. I am not saying the Nephite swords had no carbon. Without carbon, the swords would be very brittle, and really of not much use. The secret of crucible steel was closely guarded and Europeans didn't learn about it until much later. They did have some swords made of crucible steel, but these were presumably from ingots purchased from the Middle East which they then worked into swords through their forging process. This just goes to show that the iron-working process was closely guarded by smiths and could easily have been lost by the Nephites and Lamanites, when the Lamanites killed off the Nephites and their smiths.

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Interesting that you choose this particular verse, which has to do with commerce and wealth creation through artistic endeavors. 

There is not really much reason to doubt that BoM steel was forged steel. Trying to make it bronze just doesn't fit the entire picture nor the text itself. It it was bronze, where are all the bronze swords? I referred to that verse because it best shows that the BoM does differentiate between iron, steel, and bronze.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I can agree that the term steel is perhaps not always the best translation for the metal being described in the KJV, again trying to argue that the steel in the BoM is really brass is not consistent with the text. While the weaker bronze may break on Nephi, there are several places in the text which talk about steel rusting. If the Nephites made bronze bows and bronze swords, we would expect to find them because of the slow rate of decay of bronze. No bronze = not very likely that bronze was the "steel" of the BoM. Arguing for it, is really arguing against the BoM in more ways than one. If you want to argue that there was high quality steel in the Levant in Nephi's day, I haven't seen evidence for it. Here is a steel sword found in Jericho:

image.png.3b4132555bc3e7480c2f1dd213f9b10e.pngNot exactly "high quality" carbon steel. The vast majority of swords just did not survive, because they rusted away.

I really don't know what King Tut's dagger was made of. Presumably it is carbon steel, but then his tomb had about the only existing ancient chariots as well. It's locale sealed out humidity and the environment. I am not arguing carbon steel was not to be had, but it was still generally of inferior quality to crucible steel. The bloom had to be quenched and folded over many times to incorporate the carbon. I am not saying the Nephite swords had no carbon. Without carbon, the swords would be very brittle, and really of not much use. The secret of crucible steel was closely guarded and Europeans didn't learn about it until much later. They did have some swords made of crucible steel, but these were presumably from ingots purchased from the Middle East which they then worked into swords through their forging process. This just goes to show that the iron-working process was closely guarded by smiths and could easily have been lost by the Nephites and Lamanites, when the Lamanites killed off the Nephites and their smiths.

There is not really much reason to doubt that BoM steel was forged steel. Trying to make it bronze just doesn't fit the entire picture nor the text itself. It it was bronze, where are all the bronze swords? I referred to that verse because it best shows that the BoM does differentiate between iron, steel, and bronze.

I guess I'm just skeptical of steel or bronze being much used in weaponry, but being rather a luxury item. Beads and such.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I can agree that the term steel is perhaps not always the best translation for the metal being described in the KJV, again trying to argue that the steel in the BoM is really brass is not consistent with the text. While the weaker bronze may break on Nephi, there are several places in the text which talk about steel rusting. If the Nephites made bronze bows and bronze swords, we would expect to find them because of the slow rate of decay of bronze. No bronze = not very likely that bronze was the "steel" of the BoM.  ...... ..........I really don't know what King Tut's dagger was made of. Presumably it is carbon steel,...Arguing for it, is really arguing against the BoM in more ways than one. If you want to argue that there was high quality steel in the Levant in Nephi's day, I haven't seen evidence for it. Here is a steel sword found in Jericho:...................

You're preaching to the choir here, Rev.  The Bronze Plates of Laban ("brass" is KJV for bronze) served a useful purpose, but were quite unusual.  All descriptions of steel in the BofM refer to actual steel, including Laban's very exotic sword -- specifically of precious steel with a gold hilt (1 Nephi 4:9), same as King Tut's 14th century steel dagger with gold hilt, which Joseph Smith could not have known about.  Tut's dagger was made too early to be by Mitannian smiths -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98n-DTIwW18 (with iron slag in Mitanni).

The dagger was made from meteoric iron (with 10% nickel), the material of Tut's dagger was called in Egyptian biЗ n pt “metal of the sky” (= Coptic benipe),[1] and would have been crafted bloomery style.  However, there is also a nine inch steel dagger found dating to ca. 2000 B.C. in a royal grave in Hattic Alaca Höyük, Turkey,[2] and a nickel-steel battle-axe from Ugarit with bronze hilt decorated with gold, dated to about 1450-1350 B.C.[3]  There is also the steel-bladed dagger presented to King Amenhotep III by King Tushratta of Mitanni, and steel was being produced by the high culture and civilization in ancient South Arabia already by 1100 B.C.[4]  According to Lucas & Harris, based on the Brinell hardness of actual artifacts, steel was first produced in Egypt by carburizing of iron no earlier than 1200 B.C., and by carburizing and quenching no earlier than 900 B.C., although the artifacts could have been imports from Western Asia.[5]

That steel sword from near Jericho (which you mentioned) was one-meter in length and contemporary with Lehi and Nephi,[6] and an earlier steel short-sword (blade 12-16 inches long) with ivory hilt and bronze rivets was found at Philistine Ekron (Tel Miqne).[7]  The first actual steel implement known from Palestine, however, is an eleventh century B.C. pick from Upper Galilean Har Adir.[8]  More recently, iron swords and daggers have been found at a ca. 1000 B.C. Davidic site, Khirbet Qeiyafa (Sha'arayim?).[10]  The so-called “Iron Age” in which all this took place should, according to Robert Maddin, have been called the “Steel Age.”[9]


[1] J. Černý, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, 24-25; A. Lucas & J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed., 235-237, 242.

[2] W. J. Hamblin, “Steel in the Book of Mormon,” online at http://www.fairlds.org/ Book_of_Mormon/Steel_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html , citing Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, 83 #111.

[3] Muhly, “Metals,” in E. M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, IV:14.

[4] G. Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia.

[5] Lucas & Harris, 242; James Muhly, “Metallurgy,” in K. A. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 526; cf. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/trades/metals.htm .

[6] “Iron Sword from the Time of Jeremiah Discovered near Jericho,” Ensign, 17/6 (June 1987), available at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/06/research-and-perspectives/iron-sword-from-the-time-of-jeremiah-discovered-near-jericho .

[7] Seymour Gitin, “Excavating Ekron: Major Philistine City Survived by Absorbing Other Cultures,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 31/6 (Nov-Dec 2005):40-56.  See photo on p. 44.

[8] Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 360-361, photo 8.32, citing D. Davis, et al., JNES, 44 (1985):41-52.

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The problem with asserting that "steel" may have referred to bronze or copper is that the BoM uses the term steel as a descriptor for several things which had "rusted." Good bronze just won't rust away. It will corrode very slowly. Nephi's sword rusted in the desert journey, and broke. The Hejaz of Arabia is known for rusting steel quickly - cars don''t typically last long unless well coated. The Jaredite sword had rusted and only left a hilt. These things are described as steel, and Nephi is described as collecting iron ore.

 

Technically the OT "steel" = "bronze" isn't bronze in the modern sense but more akin to copper. If you read the OP it too isn't really bronze proper (copper + tin) but copper + arsenic. You get corrosion/patina with copper like that and rust would be a perfectly acceptable word to try and describe that effect even if it's not oxidized iron proper.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, USU78 said:

I guess I'm just skeptical of steel or bronze being much used in weaponry, but being rather a luxury item. Beads and such.

Yes, any decent steel was a luxury item - as it was in ancient Europe. A sword was very expensive - we are talking a year's earnings for most people. The Nephite and Lamanite leaders may have had steel swords, but those of the Lamanites may have been captured. The most common weapon was probably the atlatl, because of its killing power. Archaeology seems to confirm that. The bow and arrow was probably considered more of a hunting weapon than a weapon of war. 

So although iron was common, the amount of knowledge, skill and labor involved in making a sword made them an uncommon weapon. They would have been a weapon of last resort anyway once the atlatls and battle axes had been used.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Technically the OT "steel" = "bronze" isn't bronze in the modern sense but more akin to copper. If you read the OP it too isn't really bronze proper (copper + tin) but copper + arsenic. You get corrosion/patina with copper like that and rust would be a perfectly acceptable word to try and describe that effect even if it's not oxidized iron proper.

Yes, the "bronze plates" may have been like the brass plates of Qumran, which are probably over 99% copper. Tin was not plentiful in the Levant, but was imported. Of course i realize copper gets a patina, but once it gets it, it corrodes very slowly. Too slowly to "rust away" as the BoM describes. In the American NE hunks of copper could be regularly found just on the surface of the ground, whereas Iron would not be intact unless it was dug out as ore - even then it would need forging. Bog iron was plentiful in certain areas, but of course had to be heated to release the iron from its chemical bonds, in order to form a workable bloom. Once freed into its elemental state, iron will quickly form bonds again, and "disappear" from its environment as iron oxide or other non-elemental forms.

Roofing material makes a good example. i would not hesitate to put a copper roof on my house - but an iron roof? No way. It is going to rust away in a couple of years. Instead galvanized steel or tin roofing is used. The point is brass or even copper last quite long exposed to the environment while iron does not. There are many Native copper implements found in the Americas - museums have thousands of them. Why? Because they didn't rust away. The steel swords of that era did rust away - even in the desert environment of the Levant. That is the type of steel  Nephi would have known how to make - a fairly low quality carbonized steel. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/17/2019 at 9:07 AM, RevTestament said:

Thanks for the evidence in that new find, but it is not earth shattering. It has been known for some time that metallurgy existed in Central America. Ovens believed to have been used for making copper alloy were found in Mexico. Gold-copper alloy artifacts are plentiful. What is still in contention is whether there was any steel metallurgy. Slag has been found at other ancient sites, but it is generally just not taken seriously that it could be from ancient steel production. However, with the acknowledgment that smelting technology did exist, that likelihood creeps closer. 

 

Thanks for all the info and links, especially Robert Smith and RevTestament.  A great thread, imho.

Edited by blarsen
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...