Jaredite Steel?

[John Williams]

Ah yes... lets just go name all the people we don't agree with... "Crack pots" that will do the trick.

Got any Skeletal DNA evidence to refute his claims?

He's a crackpot because his work is not accepted by anyone but crackpots like Winters. Here's a nice summary:

To determine the racial heritage of the skeletons, Wiercinski used classic diagnostic traits, determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods, as well as the Polish Comparative-Morphological School skeletal reference collection. These measurements were then compared against three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent three racial categories,[7][8][9] which allowed Wiercinski to sort each skull into one or more racial categories.

In his conclusion, Wiercinski presented his findings:[10]

Racial composition: % of Tlatilco % of Cerro

Laponoid[11] 21% 32%

Armenoid[12] 18% 4.5%

Ainoid-Arctic[13] 11% 14%

Pacific 36% 45%

Equatorial - Bushmenoid 14% 4.5%

Based on his comparisons, Wiercinski found that 14% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas had elements of "Black" racial composition.

In the last section of his paper, Wiercinski compared the physiognomy of the skeletons to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski states that the colossal Olmec heads represent the "Dongolan" type.[14] The empirical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco calculated by Wiercinski was 0.231, more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theoretical figure of 0.101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.

Wiercinski summarizes his research by offering the following "enthogenetical hypotheses":[15]

* The indigenous rootstock of Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas is comprised of "Ainoid, Arctic, and Pacific racial elements".

* "A next migratory wave" brought in additional Pacific as well as "Laponoid" elements.

* "Some Chinese influence of Shang Period could penetrate Mesoamerica"

* "A strange transatlantic, more or less sporadic migration" brought Armenoid, Equatorial, and Bushmenoid elements.

Wiercinski's research methods and conclusions are not accepted by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars, in part because of his reliance on the Polish Comparative-Morphological methodology.

As for DNA evidence, you already know that Native Americans almost uniformly are of 4 haplogroups, none of which come from Africa.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why you want to derail this thread into a discussion of how the Native Americans were really black Africans.

Edit: And by the way, you do realize that Wiercinski wasn't working with Olmec skeletal remains, don't you? He was comparing the carved Olmec stone heads against three cranial sets that were supposed to be representative of certain ethnic types.

[Zakuska]

He wasnt working with actual Olmec Skeletons?

Based on his comparisons, Wiercinski found that 14% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas had elements of "Black" racial composition.

Last I checked these two locations where in Meso-America.

Wiercinski's research methods and conclusions are not accepted by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars, in part because of his reliance on the Polish Comparative-Morphological methodology.

Since when does the "Majority" speak truth and define who is and isnt a "crack pot"?

As for DNA evidence, you already know that Native Americans almost uniformly are of 4 haplogroups, none of which come from Africa.

Ah... but how did "Polynesian" Chickens end up in MesoAmerica during Book of Mormon times.

[John Williams]

He wasnt working with actual Olmec Skeletons?

Last I checked these two locations where in Meso-America.

Since when does the "Majority" speak truth and define who is and isnt a crack pot?

Read the article again. He looked at skeletal remains of later peoples. For the Olmecs, he had to use the carved heads. Either way, he used an antiquated methodology. And if you look at the original Wiercinski piece Winters cites, it's from a diffusionist publication, not a peer-reviewed journal.

So, from what I gather, you believe that the Olmecs were at least partly descended from Africans, and this has exactly what to do with this thread?

indeed

[Zakuska]

Read the article again. He looked at skeletal remains of later peoples. For the Olmecs, he had to use the carved heads. Either way, he used an antiquated methodology. And if you look at the original Wiercinski piece Winters cites, it's from a diffusionist publication, not a peer-reviewed journal.

So, from what I gather, you believe that the Olmecs were at least partly descended from Africans, and this has exactly what to do with this thread?

indeed

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why you want to derail this thread into a discussion of how the Native Americans were really black Africans.

Whats wrong? You don't think ancient Black Africans where smart enough to make steele weapons? Also... you remember those Black Africans who have been proven by DNA testing to be from the tribes of Israel?

Its completely germain to the discourse.

[John Williams]

Whats wrong? You don't think ancient Black Africans where smart enough to make steele weapons? Also... you remember those Black Africans who have been proven by DNA testing to be from the tribes of Israel?

Its completely germain to the discourse.

Now you're inserting a not-so-subtle accusation of racism. Sorry, but I'm done with this discussion if this is where you're going with it.

[Zakuska]

Not accusing you of any such thing.

Sorry if you took it that way.

[Zakuska]

PS... The DNA Tests are in on the olmec...

Results Native American, European, or African haplotypes were identified in 221 of 223 individuals (table 2). Two of the 223 samples were not identified by the methods employed. One hundred ninety-nine (89.2%) of the 223 samples were Native American haplotypes. The remaining 22 identified samples were equivalently divided between European and African; 12 (5.4%) were identified as European, and 10 (4.5%) were identified as African.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alterna...in_speculations

You were saying something about atiquated methods?

Based on his comparisons, Wiercinski found that 14% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas had elements of "Black" racial composition.

Wiercinski wasn't such a "crack-pot" after all now was he...

[John Williams]

PS... The DNA Tests are in on the olmec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alterna...in_speculations

You were saying something about atiquated methods?

Wiercinski wasn't such a "crack-pot" after all now was he...

You need to check your sources, Zak. The Green article is here.

The study was of present-day Mexicans in cosmopolitan cities: "mtDNA haplotypes of representatives of the cosmopolitan peoples of north-central Mexico were studied." The Green study was to gauge African and European "admixture" into the Native American population. It has nothing to do with the Olmec. Your source (Wikipedia) is a distortion.

[Zakuska]

Thanks John... but you missed the conclusion...

Prior to the Spanish conquest, Mexico was inhabited largely by peoples who crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. Some historians have estimated that 4â??5 million Native Americans inhabited Mexico before the Spanish arrived, and other estimates are as high as 25 million (M

[peeps]

Your source (Wikipedia) is a distortion.

And is in no small part authored and edited by Winters. Go figure.

[Anijen]

John, may I ask please what your professional background is? Are you John Welch of BYU? I dont mean to pry or be intrusive and will understand if you wish not to answer. I am just curious if it the same John Welch who wrote this?

[John Williams]

Thanks John... but you missed the conclusion...

Heres the problems I see with the study...

1) It Assumes that ALL Native Americans came by way of Land bridge at the end of the Plectocene.

2) It Ignores other DNA evidence... (Ie Polynesian Chickens) found only in Polynesia and Meso America. Did Native Americans bring those Polynesian Chickens across the Land bridge with them? Or do we have an indicator of sea faring contact prior to the Spanish? (2007 Article here) According to the Spanish... the Polynesians beat them to America.

The problem with the study is that it doesn't have a thing to do with the ancient Olmec, which was your original assertion. It is a study of modern, cosmopolitan Mexican cities, designed specifically to see what the modern ethnic make-up of urban Mexicans is. Our friend Mr. Winters appropriated this irrelevant study in his Wikipedia piece to use it as support for his Afrocentrist agenda; there's not much you can say about this except that Winters was dishonestly misusing a source. And you bought it.

Whether or not the study makes assumptions about the original native inhabitants is beside the point. You're simply using the wrong kind of study to make points about ancient Americans.

You've thrown out a ton of stuff in this thread, almost all of it completely irrelevant, and none of it stands up to even the slightest scrutiny.

And, no, I'm not John Welch (I think he's in my sister's ward, though). My last name is Williams. I'm a technical writer with degrees in English and Latin American Studies.

[Zakuska]

I fail to see how Polynesian Chickens here before the Spanish is not relevant.

If chickens where imported by Canoe accross the Pacific prior to the Spanish... what else was?

Pigs perhaps? Donkeys and Horses?

This was also intresting... the Indian Legends of the North American Elephants ...

Indians Told Thomas Jefferson that they hunted elephants in the great lakes area.4

73. Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont (Walpole, NH, 1794), 103.

74. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston, 1802), 56; Manchester Library accession number 9.

75. George E. Lankford, "Pleistocene Animals in Folk Memory," Journal of American Folklore 93 (July-Sept. 1980): 293-304; Loren C. Eiselly, "Myth and Mammoth in Archaeology," American Antiquity 10 (Oct. 1945): 84-87.

76. Royal American Magazine, or Universal Repository of Instruction and Amusement (Boston), Sept. 1774, 350.

77. Palmyra Herald, 19 Feb. 1823.

But we where talking about steele.

[John Williams]

I fail to see how Polynesian Chickens here before the Spanish is not relevant.

If chickens where imported by Canoe accross the Pacific prior to the Spanish... what else was?

Pigs perhaps? Donkeys and Horses?

But we where talking about steele.

Exactly. We were talking about steel, and suddenly we're dealing in Afrocentrism, Andean chickens, and urban ethnic studies.

Is this a new strategy, Zak? Throw so much stuff out that nobody knows what the heck we're talking about anymore?

The big difference between the Andean chickens and steel smelting is that there is evidence of the former, not the latter.

[Zakuska]

Except that until early last year... there was no evidence for either. We've got 351 more complexes to dig John. What else are we going to find?

[John Williams]

Except that until early last year... there was no evidence for either. We've got 351 more complexes to dig John. What else are we going to find?

No one is disputing that all the discovery hasn't been done. The problem here is that metallurgy of the type described in the Book of Ether not only is anachronistic in the New World but also in the Old World. Add to that the fact that your 351 complexes are Mayan complexes, and things look rather unlikely, do they not?

It's OK to hope for new discoveries that will make your beliefs more plausible. What I object to is all this junk pseudoscience being passed off as actual scholarship. I would just ask you to be more careful about what you use to support your ideas.

[Zakuska]

Do you deny they had technology that could make fired bricks that could withstand temperatures for steele?

910

[John Williams]

Do you deny they had technology that could make fired bricks that could withstand temperatures for steele?

910

[Zakuska]

Yep as I predicted...

The affirmative answer to this question came during a 1992 interview with Carroll Mobley, professor of metallurgical engineering at the Ohio State University. David Orr and I, representing the APGS, requested a meeting with the professor to discuss metallurgical questions posed by our investigation of Ohio's mysterious pit furnaces. When questioned about the copper controversy, the professor told Orr and I that the large Seip celt on display at the Ohio Historical Society Museum in Columbus is evidence of copper casting because it is a copper casting!

http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm

Here is the celt heas speaking of...

http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/gallery2/mai...p?g2_itemId=660

[John Williams]

Yep I predicted it...

Yeah, you should have predicted it when you linked to yet another piece of amateur pseudoscience. When are you going to learn?

Edit: Need I point out that the copper casting you mention is from a Hopewell mound that dates to 100-500 AD. Copper casting is still considered anachronistic for that time period, though obviously some people disagree. However, you're still 1500-3000 years off.

[Anijen]

The problem with the study is that it doesn't have a thing to do with the ancient Olmec, which was your original assertion. It is a study of modern, cosmopolitan Mexican cities, designed specifically to see what the modern ethnic make-up of urban Mexicans is. Our friend Mr. Winters appropriated this irrelevant study in his Wikipedia piece to use it as support for his Afrocentrist agenda; there's not much you can say about this except that Winters was dishonestly misusing a source. And you bought it.

Whether or not the study makes assumptions about the original native inhabitants is beside the point. You're simply using the wrong kind of study to make points about ancient Americans.

You've thrown out a ton of stuff in this thread, almost all of it completely irrelevant, and none of it stands up to even the slightest scrutiny.

And, no, I'm not John Welch (I think he's in my sister's ward, though). My last name is Williams. I'm a technical writer with degrees in English and Latin American Studies.

Thanks, I don't get out to happy valley much and it would have saddened me greatly to read such a beautiful and heartwarming testimony and then go apostate. I respect your vocation and education, you certainly appear on these boards as highly intelligent that is why I thought of the John Welch from BYU. I apologize to you or Brother Welch if I have offended.

I have to agree at this time the evidence is lacking for steel being smelted (2000 BCE). If there is it is found to be mostly anecdotal. I for one do believe that Heavenly Father can smelt it and provide it or a way for it to be done. Perhaps the reason there in no hard scientific evidence is because God smelted (or provided a way) it for them thus making any evidence to be found highly unlikely. Another possibility is we just haven't found any yet. Zakuska does have a point that there is a lot of place unsearched yet, so I will just hold off with hope and faith.

Take care

Anijen

[Zakuska]

Yeah, you should have predicted it when you linked to yet another piece of amateur pseudoscience. When are you going to learn?

Did you see that its in the Museum and... it is evidence of copper smelting by Native Americans?

Yes... it is a little late for BOM times.

http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/gallery2/mai...p?g2_itemId=660

[John Williams]

Did you see that its in the Museum and... it is evidence of copper smelting by Native Americans?

Yes... it is a little late for BOM times.

My point in my previous post. It's much later than the Jaredites. As I said in the OP, I know there is considerable debate about Book of Mormon-era metallurgy, though the best evidence suggests that it comes too late for Nephi and his descendants. The Jaredite claim in Ether 7 is far more problematic, and nothing you have posted here makes me want to reconsider my judgment.

[Zakuska]

According to your previous post... the Hopewells lived during BOM times (100 - 500 AD) and where smelting metals. I thought Native Americans were too dumb for any of this... after all everybody knows that all they had where stone obsidian blades.

Theres acheological evidence of smelting metals all over the Americas! Heres some more source material for you...

Caley, Earle R. and Dudley T. Easby, Jr.; "The Smelting of Sulfide Ores Of Copper In Preconquest Peru," article, American Antiquity, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1959.

Foster, James; November 6, 1811 letter describing findings at Spruce Hill, Ross County, Ohio; found tucked inside a copy of the American Medical and Philosophical Journal, Volume 2, New York, 1814.

Halsey, John R., Miskwabik - Red Metal, "The Roles Played by Michigan's Copper in Prehistoric North America, Keweenaw County Historical Society, Eagle Harbor, MI., 1992. Originally published as article in Michigan History Magazine, September/October, 1983.

Neiburger, E.J.; Melted Copper From The Archaic Midwest (1000 BC), North American Archaeologist, Vol. 12(4) 351-360, 1991.

Shimada, Izumi, Stephen Epstein and Alan K. Craig; "Bat'an Grande: A Prehistoric Metallurgical Center in Peru," article, Science, May, 1982.

Ephraim G. Squier and Edwin H. Davis; Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, originally published in 1848 by the Smithsonian Institution. A 1998 edition was published by the Smithsonian with an introduction by David H. Meltzer.

[John Williams]

Heres some more source material for you...

According to your previous post... the Hopewells live during BOM times (100 - 500 AD) and where smelting metals.

According to the article, copper was cast, but the controversy is over whether it was smelted. Again, it's still way too late for Shule et al.

Frankly, if you're going to throw a bibliography at me, maybe you should read it. You have absolutely no idea what is in those articles.