Olmec-influenced City Found In Mexico

[consiglieri]

Do you have a source for that critics saying that? That's a lame criticism, given that rivers can disappear in far less than 2,600 years.

I think I have a source. It is a book by Josh McDowell called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." It is about all the evidence that shows the Bible is true, but there was apparently room to spare for evidence that shows the Book of Mormon is bogus.

I believe that our friend, Josh, quotes Dr. Gleason Archer to the effect that the Book of Mormon is really too ridiculous for words due to the fact that it claims the existence of a river in Saudi Arabia. I will try to locate that tonight if you are interested.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Ray Agostini]

While I do believe you have a valid point, and that this is true to a point... I think the simple reality is that most people in general do not care about the nuances of things such as this but rather rely on their personal experiences. This is not suprising since we all do it to some degree.

The church leaders themselves have often said, "it does not matter where Zarahemla was". IOW, establishing what is already taken as a fait accompli , and a given, has no meaning to the true believer. It is already established by revelation to them, even if subjectively. So the point of debating archaeology is really redundant. That's why they don't discuss this in Sunday School at any great length, if at all. It is a given, a truth to them that cannot be over-ridden by any academic debate. What is the purpose of showing videos that present "impressive evidence" to people who already have all the impressive evidence they need? As some kind of back up for uncertainty?

We all reply on personal experience to some degree, true. But for many it becomes problematic when personal feelings do not entirely square with what we read. I think it should be of concern that not one non-Mormon archaeologist is taking the BoM seriously as a historical text, and even some Mormon archaeologists don't. This is when, for me, I have to take a look at what my feelings really mean. If I feel I'm going to have a great day and and win lotto, and I have a terrible day and lose $1,000, I have to rethink my feelings.

[The Dude]

I think I have a source. It is a book by Josh McDowell called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." It is about all the evidence that shows the Bible is true, but there was apparently room to spare for evidence that shows the Book of Mormon is bogus.

Just as I thought. Pot, kettle, black.

[beastie]

You have a strange way of interpreting things, beastie. Since I have been the strongest proponent of the position you describe, I suggest that I know something about the reasons for discussing it, and they aren't similar to your speculation at all. The problem with finding an artifact that is Book of Mormon-ish is that there is no diagnostic data in the text that tells us what such an artifact might be and how it would differ from anything else in the area. I agree that the previous assumption that there was a full Hebrew culture that was transported from the Old World is incorrect, but that is a far cry from your statement.

I know that this is the new mantra: what would a nephite pot look like? It would actually look like a Judean 600 BC pot. Other archaeologists actually seem to think that you can locate artifacts that signal to us that newcomers moved into an area (and no, they don't have to take over the entire area to be noticeable). I previously cited what seems to be a very pertinent comment from William Dever in "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where did They Come From" page 121:

I would argue that such direct, long-term continuities between earlier Canannite pottery and later Iron I Israelite pottery, readily documented now, cannot be the result of coincidence. Nor can they be explained by continuing to regard the early Israelites as foreigners, newcomers to Canaan from Transjordan and ultimately from Egypt. To defend the latter view, one would have to argue that (1) these intruders brought with them no pottery traditions whatsoever, and (2) that upon arriving they immediately adopted the local pottery repertoire and replicated it exactly. That would be astounding, and also unprecedented in my experience.

I better put a fine point on it. The apologists who assert that one could not recognize a nephite pot are asserting just what Dever says is unprecedented - that a group of people migrated to a new area and immediately adopted the local pottery repertoire and replicated it exactly, bringing no pottery traditions with them whatsoever.

Moreover, Brant, in regards to my "strange" interpretation, do you deny that if the Book of Mormon were to be found in ancient Mesoamerica, archaeologists would rush to loudly announce the glad news?

[Confidential Informant]

Hey Beastie,

Welcome back. I've missed your "I-ve-read-a-bunch-of-books-so-I'm-an-expert" analysis.

So, please answer this (and forgive the above sarcasm): How does your citation of Dever apply when the theoretical society you are looking for disappeared but was replaced by other societies and peoples who literally lived on top of the "missing society" for over a thousand years?

I don't ever see this bit of fact addressed. The Nephites, if they actually existed, were the final society before a collapse. They were replaced, their cities taken over and used, their homes taken over and lived in, but a subsequent groups of people who lived on top of it for over a thousand years (or more).

How much can you really expect to find?

C.I.

[Zakuska]

Do you have a source for that critics saying that? That's a lame criticism, given that rivers can disappear in far less than 2,600 years.

Sandra does...

Oct. 26, 2003

Subject: Nephi Project?

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tanner,

I am curious whether you have developed a response of any sort to the claims of the so-called "Nephi Project", run by George Potter. Their recent videos and books have sold quite a few copies and do present an impressive case, if it is at all true. For the moment, I have told my Mormon friends that Potter supposedly found his Arabian perennial river ten years ago, yet the 2003 update of the CIA world factbook still says there are no perennial rivers there. Obviously, there has been no federal review of the research and the CIA currently stands behind its findings. However, Potter's documentation seems extensive. I don't have money, resources, or contacts to investigate this myself. Any information or insight you can provide would be immensely appreciated.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letter...2003october.htm

Maybe I should write in and give the the latitude and Longitude for Google earth.

[cdowis]

We all reply on personal experience to some degree, true. But for many it becomes problematic when personal feelings do not entirely square with what we read. I think it should be of concern that not one non-Mormon archaeologist is taking the BoM seriously as a historical text,

Is that what you feel? You feel concerned? Actually, the nonLDS archeologists do not read nor study the BOM, so I feel nothing when I read your comment, since they are completely ignorant of this book.

Let's get over your feelings, and give us facts. Give us a list of nonLDS archeologists who have extensively read and done detailed studies on the BOM and mesoamerica.

and even some Mormon archaeologists don't. This is when, for me, I have to take a look at what my feelings really mean. If I feel I'm going to have a great day and and win lotto, and I have a terrible day and lose $1,000, I have to rethink my feelings.

Give us facts instead of your feelings.

[The Dude]

Hey Beastie,

Welcome back. I've missed your "I-ve-read-a-bunch-of-books-so-I'm-an-expert" analysis.

As opposed to CI's "I've-never-read-the-book-but-I'll-link-you-to-a-book-review-that-supports-my-presuppositions-about-the-book" analysis.

Guns, Germs & Steel. Have you read it yet, CI?

[consiglieri]

Just as I thought. Pot, kettle, black.

You crack me up, Dude.

I don't know if your response qualifies as a request for the documentation, but I lugged this big paperback to work this morning, so I'm going to give you the documentation anyway.

My memory worked--It is a big book by Josh McDowell

My memory didn't work--It is not "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." It is "A Ready Defense," containing (get this) "The Best of Josh McDowell."

My memory works--It is a quote from Dr. Gleason Archer, found on page 348:

In 1 Nephi 2:5-8, it is stated that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. Yet neither in historic nor prehistoric times has there been any river in Arabia at all that emptied into the Red Sea. Apart from an ancient canal which once connected the Nile with the coast of the Gulf of Suez, and certain wadis which showed occasional rainfall in ancient times, there were no streams of any kind emptying into the Red Sea on the western shore above the southern border of Egypt.

This quote is from: Archer, Gleason, L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), pp. 501-04.

I know that you, Duderino, are too smart to get caught with your pants down making such universal pronouncements.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

The CIA as of 2003 are still saying it... and critics are beleiving it. I'm going to load google earth and I'll give everyone the coordinates.

Download: Google Earth

OK here is the coordinates...

Granite Canyon

Lattitude: 28

[The Dude]

The CIA as of 2003 are still saying it... and critics are beleiving it. I'm going to load google earth and I'll give everyone the coordinates.

Anyone who believes the CIA is going to get caught with their pants down.

[consiglieri]

Hey, Zak!

Better hustle over to the thread I just started so you can lock in the coordinates, man!

Anyone who believes the CIA is going to get caught with their pants down.

I love to be anonymously referenced.

[beastie]

So, please answer this (and forgive the above sarcasm): How does your citation of Dever apply when the theoretical society you are looking for disappeared but was replaced by other societies and peoples who literally lived on top of the "missing society" for over a thousand years?

I don't ever see this bit of fact addressed. The Nephites, if they actually existed, were the final society before a collapse. They were replaced, their cities taken over and used, their homes taken over and lived in, but a subsequent groups of people who lived on top of it for over a thousand years (or more).

How much can you really expect to find?

I must misunderstand your question, because as it is phrased, one could not reasonably expect to find anything about the Olmec, Maya, or any other ancient Mesoamerican civilization, either.

The apologists' point, as I understand it, isn't that there is no evidence of the Nephites (which your question seems to presume) but rather that the evidence looks exactly like Olmec, Maya, et al evidence. This presupposes that the Nephites did not retain one whit of their Old World traditions, including pottery, and simply adopted the pre-existing culture's entire tradition. This is what Dever says would be unprecedented.

the dude's response:

As opposed to CI's "I've-never-read-the-book-but-I'll-link-you-to-a-book-review-that-supports-my-presuppositions-about-the-book" analysis.

Guns, Germs & Steel. Have you read it yet, CI?

Snicker. I don't have anything to add, but I just wanted to repeat the dude's response.

[Brant Gardner]

This is what Dever says would be unprecedented.

You know, I read that same book, and I never read him saying anything of the sort. In the case of pottery changes, you are over-reading your sources (again). What you have to do as you read is try to apply the same conditions to the new situations to see what is relevant.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, your discussion of the expectation of a pottery changes is pretty clearly irrelevant. Here is the reasoning.

Lehi and his family were wealthy city-dwellers. While there would have been an established pottery style (with available imported alternatives) none of Lehi's family were potters. They purchased their pottery.

Move that non-pottery-making clan to the New World and what can you expect? They don't know the local clays. They don't know how to fire the pots. They don't know how to construct them. There are two ways that they might acquire pottery, assuming that whatever they brought with them would eventually break and require replacement.

They made it or they bought it.

If they made it, someone had to teach them. What style and method would be taught? Obviously, the indigenous style and method.

If they bought it, what style would the creator of the pot have used? Obviously, the indigenous style and method.

How, in this particular scenario, do you believe that you could create a valid reason to see an intrusion of an Old World pottery style that would last hundreds of years and be so widespread as to be found?

[beastie]

Brant,

I am not paraphrasing from Dever, I am quoting him, from page 121:

I would argue that such direct, long-term continuities between earlier Canannite pottery and later Iron I Israelite pottery, readily documented now, cannot be the result of coincidence. Nor can they be explained by continuing to regard the early Israelites as foreigners, newcomers to Canaan from Transjordan and ultimately from Egypt. To defend the latter view, one would have to argue that (1) these intruders brought with them no pottery traditions whatsoever, and (2) that upon arriving they immediately adopted the local pottery repertoire and replicated it exactly. That would be astounding, and also unprecedented in my experience.

So you did read him saying "anything of the sort". It's just that you, like all human beings, tend to notice the statements that support what you already believe, not the ones that contradict what you already believe.

And having read the book you realize he isn't just talking about pottery. He's talking about how they live, the type of houses they build, the tools they use.

We've had this conversation before, but I hadn't read Dever's book at that time, IIRC. Not only would it be unprecedented, according to Dever, for an immigrant group to totally abandon their former culture and way of doing things, but it flatly contradicts the BoM, which states that Nephi taught his people how to work with tools and how to build buildings. (2 Nephi 5:15-17)

[charity]

I'm not an expert in these matters, but even common sense will tell you that the difference between the Caananites and the Israelites as far as pottery, houses, etc. goes is going to be minimal since they share the same climate and geographical area. On the other hand, what similarities are we going to find between Old World Nephites and New World Nephites? Dry scrub desert to tropical rainforest. Brant mentioned differences in clay for pottery. And a whole lot more.

[beastie]

I'm not an expert in these matters, but even common sense will tell you that the difference between the Caananites and the Israelites as far as pottery, houses, etc. goes is going to be minimal since they share the same climate and geographical area. On the other hand, what similarities are we going to find between Old World Nephites and New World Nephites? Dry scrub desert to tropical rainforest. Brant mentioned differences in clay for pottery. And a whole lot more.

There is no difference between the Canaanites and Israelites because the Israelites were Canaanites. If the Israelites, on the other hand, were actually from Egypt, then there would be notable differences.

Groups that migrate to areas quite different than their homeland still manage to retain enough traditions from their homeland that archaeologists can detect their presence. Both the Old World and Mesoamerica made pottery. Are you suggesting that the native materials would be so different that it would be impossible for the Nephites to continue making pots in their own tradition?

[Brant Gardner]

Groups that migrate to areas quite different than their homeland still manage to retain enough traditions from their homeland that archaeologists can detect their presence.

I notice that you have deftly ignored my questions. The critical issue is how one is defining a "group." You have defined it generically and since any "group" is a "group," you are assuming general rules. You aren't thinking about the size or composition in your analysis.

Please review my question about how the Lehites would have created pottery. How would it be possible for them to honor your desire for them to be the kind of "group" that would have to bring their pottery style with them.

[beastie]

How did I ignore your question?

First, you seem to assert that Dever had said no such thing, so I reminded you I was quoting from him, not paraphrasing him.

Second, you assert that since the Lehites were rich they wouldn't make pottery. I responded by reminding you that the Dever book addressed far more than pottery, and your assertion that they wouldn't use any of their old ways is directly contradicted by the BoM itself. 2 Nephi 5:

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in 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.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomonâ??s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cause my people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands.

So, Brant, are you asserting that the Lehites knew how to engage in all the craft listed here, but knew nothing about pottery? And are you asserting that the issue is pottery alone? And by challenging me to demonstrate "how" they made their pottery, are you asserting that it would be impossible to make pottery (or other items, see above) in the tradition of the Old World in the New World? If so, why?

[charity]

beastie, Nephi was not limited in nstructing his people in how to do things he already knew how to do from his previous life in the Old World. Remember, he built a ship without ever having built one before. There is certainly precedent for God instructing him in how to do something that would not have been a previously acquired skill.

[beastie]

BTW, anyone who has the technology to melt metals has more than enough background knowledge to make a pot.

So, Charity, you're asserting that God told Nephi how to do these things, and God told him to do it exactly like the native Mesoamericans were already doing it?

And if the majority of Nephi's followers were native Mesoamericans (the unnamed "others") who already knew how to do all of this stuff, why did Nephi have to teach them?

[juliann]

How did I ignore your question?

First, you seem to assert that Dever had said no such thing, so I reminded you I was quoting from him, not paraphrasing him.

Second, you assert that since the Lehites were rich they wouldn't make pottery. I responded by reminding you that the Dever book addressed far more than pottery, and your assertion that they wouldn't use any of their old ways is directly contradicted by the BoM itself. 2 Nephi 5:

So, Brant, are you asserting that the Lehites knew how to engage in all the craft listed here, but knew nothing about pottery? And are you asserting that the issue is pottery alone? And by challenging me to demonstrate "how" they made their pottery, are you asserting that it would be impossible to make pottery (or other items, see above) in the tradition of the Old World in the New World? If so, why?

Dodgeball! I like that even more than the dictionary game. In other words, she won't be answering your question any time soon, Brant.

BTW, anyone who has the technology to melt metals has more than enough background knowledge to make a pot.

I can see you know tons about pottery making, too. Stop dodging and answer:

How, in this particular scenario, do you believe that you could create a valid reason to see an intrusion of an Old World pottery style that would last hundreds of years and be so widespread as to be found?

How would it be possible for them to honor your desire for them to be the kind of "group" that would have to bring their pottery style with them.

(This means that you need to define "group" as you are using it. You know...numbers, size? Stuff like that. )

[cdowis]

I've said it quite a number of times myself. The reason the subject interests me at all is because many LDS do claim that proof/strong evidence is there. If one receives a witness through the Holy Ghost this is supposed to be sufficient, but in reality, for many (not most) it isn't. The average "chapel Mormon" could care little about proof. But I find there is some "double speak" when one gives a stream of evidences supposedly supporting BoM historicity, then qualifies that with "but we can really only know through the Holy Ghost". The question is: Does evidence, or the lack thereof I should say, bother some testimonies? It certainly bothered Tom Ferguson, who searched for 25 years for hard evidence and concluded there was none. Regardless of Ferguson's lack of qualifications as a professional archaeologist (he was a lawyer), the point I'm making is that for people like him evidence is crucial, and his subsequent loss of faith shows that. He was quite confident he would find something which vindicated his strong belief in the reality of BoM historicity.

Ferguson made the classic error of assumption. He was unable to prove his assumptions about the BOM, so his conclusions were faulty. He blamed the BOM for his failure, rather than looking inside himself for his own failing. He was right about his assumptions, and, failing to confirm them, the BOM was false.

IOW, this was a personal failure rather than the BOM failing to "do" anything. He was unwillling to take personal responsibility for his actions.

[beastie]

Juliann, the answer to why Nephi would have understood how to make pottery is going to take some lengthy citations. That answer is addressed throughout this entire post. The question about the size of the group is embedded within this post, but to help you locate it, I alerted you to the specific paragraph that addresses it with italics. I am being this explicit not because I am being patronizing or condescending, but because I am tired of being accused of not answering questions I have often spent pages answering.

The link between the evolution of pottery technology and smelting is strong. From Robert Raymondâ??s From the Fiery Furnace, beginning on page 10 (this is a lengthy citation but is necessary to address the point)

â??The discovery by Neolithic man of how to smelt metals from their ores, where they are linked by strong chemical bonds to elements such as oxygen, sulphur, and carbon, must stand as one of the great achievements in human history. It called for a stretch of the imagination, allied perhaps with intuition, that even now, with the clarity of scientific hindsight, we find difficult to explain.

There were, to begin with, no obvious paths to follow from native metals to smelting. Certainly, men learned very early â?? possibly as early as the time of Catal Huyuk â?? that native metals could be softened by heat, and even melted and cast into moulds. But simply heating mineral ores does not release the metal they contain. Furthermore, there would have been little incentive to apply heat to mineral ores, since they bear no resemblance to the metals they contain. Copper ores are particularly deceptive. The vivid green of malachite â?? much admired in antiquity for jewelry â?? gives no hint of the red metal within, combined with oxygen and carbon. And yet malachite was almost certainly the first metallic ore to be smelted on a world-wide scale.

Note 2 Nephi:

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in 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.

Clearly Nephi knew how to work with ores, and taught this to his â??peopleâ?. According to LGT, his people werenâ??t just his family members, but rather the unnamed â??othersâ?, ie, native Mesoamericans. Sorenson suggests Kaminaljuyu for the City of Nephi, which makes sense because it is one of the few sites at that time period with the requisite population levels for the BoM context. Kaminaljuyu was already an established polity at that time, and even had an irrigation system set up by 700 BC. So whatever Nephi is teaching to his people, he is teaching to a significant group of people in ancient Mesoamerica. In fact, he is teaching it to people who live in the most powerful polity of that time period.

From The Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, page 30:

â??New centers emerged in the central Guatemala highlands at this period (middle preclassic), probably because the flat plateaus became more habitable due to diminishing volcanic activity. All these new settlements were well situated for trade. Kaminaljuyu in the Valley of Guatemala, for example, could control nearby obsidian sources, but it was also in an enviable position to command trade between the Caribbean and the Pacific coast through the river routes in the Motagua Valley, and through the highland pass down to the Pacific. Cacao, obsidian, and jade were part of the valuable trade that would expand in the Late Preclassic, making Kaminaljuyu flourish into one of the most important cities of that period. By 700 B.C.E., Kaminaljuyu already had constructed a major irrigation canal, and by 500 B.C.E., it began carving freestanding stone slabs called stelae.â?

The first point this brings to mind is the fact that obviously Kaminaljuyu was already an established center by 600 BC when it was named after Nephi who became its king. In fact, it would have, once again, been one of the more developed polities of the time period, and hence, one of the most influential in terms of the developing Mesoamerica. More information from the same text regarding Kaminaljuyu, or the City of Nephi:

â??Kaminaljuyu grew from a small center in the Valley of Guatemala in 500 B.C.E. to a capital city dominating the terminal Preclassic period. Although the sprawl of modern Guatemala City has destroyed much of the ancient site and made a careful reconstruction of its development impossible, Kaminaljuyu in its final phase (Early Classic) was a city of more than 200 earthen and adobe-plastered mounds in contrast to approximately 80 at Izapa. The majority of the mounds dated to the Late Preclassic period. Some were 20 meters (66 feet) high and once supported adobe or wooden temples with thatched roofs. One massive structure, judging from the rich tombs it contained, must have been an ancestor shrine dedicated to deceased rulers. An artificial canal, built C. 400 B.C.E. to replace one from the Middle Preclassic Period, fed a vast irrigation system. Great platforms with temples and what may have been a palace courtyard complex were constructed; stelae, some almost 2 meters (6 feet) tall, were carved in low relief, with hieroglyphic inscriptions.

Kaminaljuyu was more powerful and wealthier than any other city in the southern region during this period. Kaminaljuyu influences can be seen at other highland sites and from the Salama Valley to El Baul and Chalchuapa. Although population estimates for Kaminaljuyu cannot be made because of the destruction of the site, tens of thousands of laborers, probably drawn from all over the valley, were necessary to construct and maintain the city.

Many archaeologists believe that the centralized power required to organize such public works would have been beyond that of a mere chiefdom. And the stelae cult probably served to glorify the rulers of such an incipient state. One tomb â?? Bural C in Structure E-III-3 â?? is the richest yet discovered anywhere in the Maya realm for the Late Preclassic Period. Its more than 300 artifacts â?? jade, obsidian, quartz crystals, entire sheets of mica, stingray spines (known to be used by Maya royalty for autosacrifice), fish teeth, and, of course, ceramics including Usultan-ware â?? certainly suggest that its occupant, accompanied by four sacrificed individuals, was a Kaminaljuyu king. The burial contents also demonstrate the extensive trade and wealth of this strategically located city. (page 38)â?

Juliann, here is your answer regarding the size of the group

So, within the context of the BoM, it doesnâ??t matter if the Lehite group was comprised of only a few families. Moreover, archaeology can provide evidence of such a small number, but that is irrelevant since we are discussing Nephi and his people. Nephi was made â??kingâ? over a powerful polity, and taught those people these crafts and technologies.

Back to the link between pottery and smelting and why I assert that if Nephi knew how to smelt metal, he knew how to make pottery:

Continuing from From the Fiery Furnace,

The link between native copper and malachite might well have been suggested initially Neolithic man by the common association of these two forms of metal in outcrops of ore. But the process by which he then learned how to extract copper from the malachite remains one of the most fascinating questions in all prehistory. It is a major challenge to the new scientific discipline of archaeo-metallurgy, in which archaeologists, prehistorians, anthropologists, geologists and metallurgists are not only looking at ancient habitation sites and early metal artefacts with new insights, but are using all the tools of modern chemistry and physics to establish the origin of metal working and the methods of its founders.

To smelt copper from malachite two conditions must be met. One is the application of energy, in the form of intense heat â?? at least 1084 C, which is the melting point of pure copper. The other is an atmosphere starved of oxygen but rich in carbon. Such an atmosphere draws off the oxygen from the heated ore and â??reducesâ?? the copper to a molten metallic form. Given time and sufficient heat, the molten copper separates form the residue of the ore, which forms a lighter molten substance called slag.

This is an exacting process, and it is difficult to imagine it being conceived and applied by Neolithic man other than as the results of some accidental experience, or the observation of some related by haphazard event. Curiosity and intelligent experimentation might then have evolved a method of smelting which worked, even if it was not properly understood.

(p 12)The circumstances of that accidental experience or haphazard event are not easy to identify, and there is at present no generally accepted explanation. One obvious approach to the problem is to establish where in the ancient world copper ores might have been subjected, by accident or design, to those two critical conditions: a temperature close to 1200 C, and a â??reducingâ?? atmosphere.

One possibility, which has been strongly supported, is the camp-fire. Early man, it is suggested, must on occasion have built his cooking fire on outcrops of ores such as malachite, or perhaps used ore-bearing rocks to make a fireplace. After a particularly hot fire, fanned by the wind, he might have found blobs of smelted copper in the ashes. It is a persuasive idea, and in fact some recent research suggests that it might well have worked for one metal â?? lead. Experiments at the Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, associated with the Institute of Archaeology in London, have shown that lead can be smelted from its common ore, galena, in a wood or charcoal camp-fire. Such a fire burns at about 600 or 700 C, and this is well above the melting point of lead, which is only 327 C.

(13)However, where copper is concerned this theory faces difficulties which most authorities on metallurgy find insurmountable. To begin with, the melting point of copper is formidably high â?? 1084 C â?? and this is rarely achieved in an open fire, even with wind assistance. A greater problem is the maintenance of a reducing atmosphere. Burning carbon fuel does produce carbon monoxide gas, thus creating a reducing atmosphere immediately above the glowing coals, but in an open fire this is fitful and intermittent. There seems to be little likelihood of sustaining the two necessary conditions long enough to reduce copper accidentally, or even deliberately, in a campfire. Most archaeo-metallurgists are therefore inclined to look elsewhere for the genesis of this critical advance.

One other possibility, which is gaining increasing credibility, derives strong support from two historical facts: both smelting and pottery making appeared in Neolithic life at about the same time, and the potter, the first specialist in the management of heat, had under his control all the materials and conditions necessary for the smelting of copper.

Pottery is an interesting avenue of exploration, not just due to the fact that it is so important in archaeology, but because of its link to metallurgy. Nephi knows how to smelt ores.

From 1 Nephi 17:

10 And it came to pass that the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools.

11 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make a bellows wherewith to blow the fire, of the skins of beasts; and after I had made a bellows, that I might have wherewith to blow the fire, I did smite two stones together that I might make fire.

The history of pottery making is concerned, like smelting, with the transformation of materials by the application of heat. It no doubt began with the observation that clay is soft and easily shaped while wet, but dries hard in the sun; if wetted again, of course, it softens once more. The natural progression might have been to reinforce or emphasize the drying process in a fire. And so, by about nine or ten thousand years ago, it became known that when clay is fired to about 450 C it undergoes a chemical change and becomes irreversibly hard and water-proof. Above about 1400 C it undergoes a second change: the silica in the clay takes on a glassy structure, and the pottery becomes even more rigid.

At first, pots were heat-treated in open fires. In many parts of the world, including New Guinea, they still are. Later it was found that more predictable results could be obtained by stacking the pots on top of the fuel before lighting it, and covering the pile with earth or other material to keep in the heat and distribute it more evenly. Eventually it was realized that a permanent cover, with a built-in flue, was more efficient than making temporary piles for each firing. Thus, somewhere around the beginning of the sixth millennium BC, the pottery kiln came into existence.

With its thick, heat-retaining walls and flue-assisted natural draught, the pottery kiln could maintain temperatures well in excess of 1000 C for hours. In the enclosed space the fumes from the fire would tend to create a reducing atmosphere. Two of the conditions necessary for the smelting of copper were present. And so, on occasion, was the third requirement: the copper ores themselves.

Both metallurgy and pottery require knowledge of a manner in which heat can be created at a very high temperature, ie, the kiln. This, of course, links in to the question of whether or not Mesoamerica, during the BoM period, even had the heat-producing technology necessary to smelt metal.

The history of pottery making is concerned, like smelting, with the transformation of materials by the application of heat. It no doubt began with the observation that clay is soft and easily shaped while wet, but dries hard in the sun; if wetted again, of course, it softens once more. The natural progression might have been to reinforce or emphasize the drying process in a fire. And so, by about nine or ten thousand years ago, it became known that when clay is fired to about 450 C it undergoes a chemical change and becomes irreversibly hard and water-proof. Above about 1400 C it undergoes a second change: the silica in the clay takes on a glassy structure, and the pottery becomes even more rigid.

At first, pots were heat-treated in open fires. In many parts of the world, including New Guinea, they still are. Later it was found that more predictable results could be obtained by stacking the pots on top of the fuel before lighting it, and covering the pile with earth or other material to keep in the heat and distribute it more evenly. Eventually it was realized that a permanent cover, with a built-in flue, was more efficient than making temporary piles for each firing. Thus, somewhere around the beginning of the sixth millennium BC, the pottery kiln came into existence.

With its thick, heat-retaining walls and flue-assisted natural draught, the pottery kiln could maintain temperatures well in excess of 1000 C for hours. In the enclosed space the fumes from the fire would tend to create a reducing atmosphere. Two of the conditions necessary for the smelting of copper were present. And so, on occasion, was the third requirement: the copper ores themselves.

Very early in the history of pottery, metallic ores had come into use for decoration, perhaps as a direct continuation of the tribal custom of body painting with ground-up mineral ores. The pigments were applied to the pots in liquid form, covered with a glaze â?? usually made with a lead oxide base â?? and fired. The pigments took on bright, permanent colours, and the glaze formed a hard, transparent protective coating.

There are many ways where pots are still decorated with metallic ores in this way, and fired in kilns whose design has hardly changed in thousands of years. One is Jarasthan, in northern India. The traditional brightly patterned â??blue potteryâ?? produced in and around Jaipur, the capital, is derived form the Islamic style of pottery introduced into India in the sixteenth century. Today there are scores of potter continually engaged, but one who stands out because of his technical grasp of pottery making and the behavior of metallic pigments is Kripal Singh. His work is in demand all round the world, and is remarkable for its consistency and quality. And yet, as he showed us, Kripal Singh still occasionally produces â?? quite unintentionally â?? smelted metal in his own kiln.

Kripal Singh uses many different metal ores for pigments, including copper, lead, iron, antimony, and cobalt. He makes his glaze by heating lead oxide crystals in the kiln. They melt down into a glassy substance which is ground into a powder, mixed with a binding agent, and applied to the decorated pots before firing. Sometimes Kripal Singh has to throw away a batch of melted-down glaze because it contains globules of pure metallic lead. More rarely, the transformation takes place later, during the firing of the pots, and produces patches of metallic lead in the layer of glaze.

(p 16) We cannot be sure, of course, that this is how the smelting process was first observed or contrived, but the repetitive nature of pottery firing and the conditions involved make it an obvious possibility. It may be more than coincidence that copper artefacts do not begin to appear in the archaeological record in any quantity until after pottery itself appears. And two areas where high-temperature pottery firing evolved â?? Mesopotamia and Egypt â?? went on to develop a high level of copper technology.

If it was in fact the pottery kiln which provided the first clues to smelting, it would soon have been appreciated that such a device was not ideal for the deliberate reduction of metallic ores. In the large are space the reducing gases were not evenly distributed, and much of the heat was wasted. So we can imagine people trying all kinds of methods of creating more effectively the conditions for smelting.

Many directions those early experiments took remain a mystery, but we do know that somewhere along the way the metal workers turned back to, or modified, the open fire. The walls of the fireplace were brought in closer to the fire and raised in height to make a more enclosed space, in which the reducing gases could be concentrated. The copper ore was brought closer to the source of the heat by mixing it with the burning charcoal. Air was blown into the heart of the furnace to raise the temperature. And, finally, other substances such as iron ore were added to the copper ore as a â??fluxâ??. Fluxing assists the reduction process, and improves the separation of the molten copper from the slag.â?

I know this was a long citation, and some posters are not willing to devote that much time to the question, but I think it can only be adequately addressed with this background information. If Nephi, as the BoM claims, knew how to smelt metals in order to create tools, with which he built the ship, and then to make swords (or at least one sword, although the text makes it sound like he made many swords using the same method, some apologists think he may have just made one special sword with Old World technology, and then made â??swordsâ? like the Mesoamerican macuahuitl or the atlatl, ignoring the fact that the presence of the either in 600 BC would also an anachronism.

Then Nephi most certainly had the background knowledge necessary to make pots, whether or not he ever made them in the Old World.

In regards to the pyro-technology required to smelt metals, we can tell from their pottery that they did not possess this technology during the BoM period. From Deanne Mathenyâ??s essay Does the Shoe Fit:

â??Karen Bruhns has explored the issue of early metals in southern Mesoamerica in a well-researched article and remarks that the Maya had some access to metal objects from the Early Classic period onwards. After a review of the information available about these early metal objects, she concludes that the â??only relatively certain statement that can be made is, with the possible exception of the Soconusco disksâ?¦ all Classic period metal objects found in Mesoamerica are obviously southeastern in manufactureâ? (1989, 221). This means that these artifacts were not made in the Maya area or in another region of Mesoamerica but in lower Central America.

If these metal objects were available to the Maya by at least Early Classic times, then the obvious problem becomes explaining why the Maya did not begin producing their own metal artifacts given the availability of gold, silver, and copper in eastern Guatemala, western Honduras, and El Salvador. Bruhns suggests that the southern Mesaoamericans lacked adequate pyrotechnology to make the transition to successful metallurgy (1989, 224). Specifically they lacked the technological prowess to attain and maintain the necessary temperatures to smelt metal. The ceramics from the area were fired in poorly controlled open fires, which often resulted in fire-clouding and incompletely oxidized areas. Only by the Late Classic and Early Postclassic periods does evidence exist that the Maya had begun producing ceramic vessels in controlled firing situations, including kilns. The adoption of the Central American metallurgical technology occurred in the Maya area soon after the production of Plumbate pottery began. Plumbate pottery has a vitrified surface and, according to Bruhns, the â??temperatures which produce the characteristic vitrification of Tohil Plumbate are precisely those which are appropriate for smelting.â? (1986, 226)â?

[charity]

Since this last part of the topic has gotten off into the "why" of pottery making, or non-making by Nephites, let's get away from pages of cut and paste on neolithic man and get to the nitty gritty.

Maybe Mrs. Nephi said, "You expect me to get clay under my fingernails when I can run down to the Others Pottery Barn and just pick up a few pots?" Maybe the Nephites were busy enough with getting themselves established they didn't care to reinvent the wheel and just started using pots already made by an indigenous group. Why's are such useless questions to ask unless you can ask them of the individual(s) who were there. Any answer to a "why" question by anyone else is just a guess.