Jaredite Steel?

[Zakuska]

And neither do you. Yet you claim they didn't even exist, becuase everyone knows American Indians where to stupid for Metal working. Thats why the Spanish where able to conquer them.

[John Williams]

And neither do you. Yet you claim they didn't even exist.

CFR. I have never claimed "they didn't even exist." What I have said is that there is no evidence of metallurgy (or specifically steel smelting) in the New World at the time of the Jaredites. I stand by that statement.

becuase everyone knows American Indians where to stupid for Metal working. Thats why the Spanish where able to conquer them.

Stop telling me that I think people are too stupid. That is very close to a charge of racism, and I really resent the implication.

[Zakuska]

Your opening post...

But metallurgy was not known among even the later Mayans corresponding to Nephite/Lamanites timelines: "There are certain things about the Maya landscape, about life in the tropics, and about the kind of â??technologyâ? available to the ancient Maya that help people of the twentieth century to understand a little better what their lives were really like. They were, first of all, a stone age people, without metal of any kind until several centuries before the Conquest. All they accomplished was done by means of stone tools, utilizing human beings as their beasts of burden" (Linda Schele, Forest of Kings, 60).

Here we see all kinds of Metalurgy known among these peoples. And whats more... they are AXE heads. Axes are used in one of two ways. Tool... Weapon.

[John Williams]

Your opening post...

Here we see all kings of Metalurgy known amoung these peoples.

Again, I stand by my statement. No metallurgy is known until the late Classic period, which postdates the Book of Mormon. The articles you have quoted suggest possible copper casting in the Upper Ohio Valley slightly earlier, but again, the only evidence you have is from amateurs in a non-peer-reviewed article. Can you find any corroboration? I would guess not.

[Zakuska]

How so... the Hopewell corespond to the final battle of the Nephites. (100 - 500 AD) Here we have Native Americans Smelting Metal making axe heads. During the Time of the Nephites.

PS... The "Dentists" work IS peer reviewed.

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

http://www.baywood.com/journals/previewjou...sp?id=0197-6931

[John Williams]

How so... the Hopewell corespond to the final battle of the Nephites.

I will say it again: one article from an amateur does not constitute solid evidence. Do you have any corroboration of Neiburger's hypotheses? I can't find any.

Edit: Ask and ye shall receive. I did find a reference to Hopewell copperworking in American Antiquity, which states "A prehistoric Hopewell copper earspool was analyzed by a number of metallurgical techniques including transmission electron microscopy. While optical photomicrographs and micro-hardness data suggest that the final fabrication process was annealing, transmission electron microscopy indicates that some final cold working was applied."

Annealing means that metal is heated and pounded, not smelted and cast. So, it appears from this article that Neiburger's analysis is incorrect. This works quite nicely with the widely held understanding among scholars that metalworking, rather than metallurgy, was practiced at that time in the Americas.

[Zakuska]

I'll post it again:

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

[Zakuska]

I will say it again: one article from an amateur does not constitute solid evidence. Do you have any corroboration of Neiburger's hypotheses? I can't find any.

Edit: Ask and ye shall receive. I did find a reference to Hopewell copperworking in American Antiquity, which states "A prehistoric Hopewell copper earspool was analyzed by a number of metallurgical techniques including transmission electron microscopy. While optical photomicrographs and micro-hardness data suggest that the final fabrication process was annealing, transmission electron microscopy indicates that some final cold working was applied."

Annealing means that metal is heated and pounded, not smelted and cast. So, it appears from this article that Neiburger's analysis is incorrect. This works quite nicely with the widely held understanding among scholars that metalworking, rather than metallurgy, was practiced at that time in the Americas.

Now you're splitting hairs John...

[John Williams]

Now you're splitting hairs John...

It's not splitting hairs to distinguish between metalworking and smelting. There's a huge difference. According to the article I cited, the Hopewell stuff is worked copper, not smelted copper. Annealing is what you do when you don't know how to smelt.

[Zakuska]

It's not splitting hairs to distinguish between metalworking and smelting. There's a huge difference. According to the article I cited, the Hopewell stuff is worked copper, not smelted copper. Annealing is what you do when you don't know how to smelt.

The Metal was Black Smithed.

Ether 10: 23

23 And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.

Ether 7: 9

9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

Is not steal... black smitthed as well?

PS. It doesnt explain the Clay Molds Neiburger has found.

[John Williams]

The Metal was Black Smithed.

Ether 10: 23

23 And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.

Let's play scripture tag: How did they get the metal from the ore?

Ether 7:9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him

Melting ore is not the same as "blacksmithing" or annealing. It's the smelting or "moltening" if you will, that is the anachronism, even if we stipulate that Joseph Smith didn't really mean "steel" here.

Again, the only person who seems to believe that these were actually "molds" is Ellis Neiburger. I'm still waiting for some corroboration.

Edit: somehow I missed this part of the article you cited:

However, now in 2001 I find that Dr. Neiburger isn't as sure of this as Mobley was. He has examined other celts of comparable size, well documented to be prehistoric, and found evidence of hammering and annealing, but none of casting. He said the smooth and symmetrical shape could have be attained by hammering, annealing and the use of abrasive materials. It is also the case that such "cold working," if applied to artifacts that were originally cast, could obliterate evidence of the casting.

So, we have a scientific journal saying that it was annealing, not smelting, and even your own source is inclined to agree.

How many strikes is that, Zak?

[Zakuska]

You missed the last sentence...

However, now in 2001 I find that Dr. Neiburger isn't as sure of this as Mobley was. He has examined other celts of comparable size, well documented to be prehistoric, and found evidence of hammering and annealing, but none of casting. He said the smooth and symmetrical shape could have be attained by hammering, annealing and the use of abrasive materials. It is also the case that such "cold working," if applied to artifacts that were originally cast, could obliterate evidence of the casting.

I guess we'll never know.

[John Williams]

You missed the last sentence...

I guess we'll never know.

Except that the scientific journal I cited actually conducted experiments showing that the metal was annealed, not smelted. So, Neiburger's suggestion that the casting was obscured by cold working is not supported by science.

So, yes, we do know.

Edit: I'm out of posts, so I'll have to respond here. Your source, Mallery, is an amateur writing in the 1950s. His opinion about the axe heads not having been worked, has not been confirmed by anyone since then. In fact, your major proponent, Mr. Neiburger, has backpedaled on this issue.

I'm going to bed. Let me know when you have some real science on your side.

[Zakuska]

Read your source again...

Ask and ye shall receive. I did find a reference to Hopewell copperworking in American Antiquity, which states "A prehistoric Hopewell copper earspool was analyzed by a number of metallurgical techniques including transmission electron microscopy. While optical photomicrographs and micro-hardness data suggest that the final fabrication process was annealing, transmission electron microscopy indicates that some final cold working was applied."

1) Its not an Axe head - Its an Ear ring Of course it was worked over.

The celts only showed annealing on the cutting edge.

The widely accepted theory that the native North Americans used copper only as malleable stone is wrong, Mallery declared, because many of the heavier pieces, such as axes and chisels, had never been touched by a hammer except at the cutting edge. Therefore, he concluded these pieces could not have been hammered out of material from the naturally occurring native copper deposits, but would have had to have been cast from molten copper.

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

[maupayman]

Read your source again...

1) Its not an Axe head - Its an Ear ring Of course it was worked over.

The celts only showed annealing on the cutting edge.

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

Zakuska you are unbelievable. You just won't drop this one will you. At least Anijen has been honest in saying that the evidence does not seem to be in favor of it as of today. Jon, I really cannot believe how much of his stuff you have actually read and responded to. You are far more patient than myself. On the other hand, Anijen's proposal that God was magically smelting as to leave no trace seems like a bit of a stretch.

Jon, would I correct to assume that smelting was a part of mound builder mythology? It has been a while since I have read much about the popular notions of that time in regards to the native americans.

[Zakuska]

Ok so you don't like Hopewell... lets move to Peru. You know where those Polynesian Chickens where found last year... lets take a look at their Metalurgic activites.

Intensive Pre-Incan Metallurgy

Recorded by Lake Sediments

from the Bolivian Andes

New World metallurgy emerged in the Andean

region of South America between the Initial

Period (1800 to 900 B.C.) and the Early Horizon

(900 to 200 B.C.) (1). The oldest well-dated

archaeological site containing metal artifacts is

Mina Perdida (Lurı

[Zakuska]

Intresting...

Abstract

The present work describes the origin and description through metallographic characterization of different objects: tools and weapons found in an archeological deposits in Bat

[Zakuska]

This is also intresting...

The history of pre-Columbian metallurgy in South America is incomplete because

looting of metal artifacts has been pervasive. Here, we reconstruct a

millennium of metallurgical activity in southern Bolivia using the stratigraphy

of metals associated with smelting (Pb, Sb, Bi, Ag, Sn) from lake sediments

deposited near the major silver deposit of Cerro Rico de Potosı

[John Williams]

This is also intresting...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/301/5641/1893.pdf

FARMS has been saying the exact same thing and being Laughed at by critics for years. Perhaps the reason we don't see many metal artifacts in the form of weapons and what not is because precious shiny metals don't tend to just get thrown away. They are collected and incorporated into other more usefull things. The Bodies of enimies are usually looted before being cast off. Or... if a body is found in a grave with such things it gets looted by Modern treasure hunters.

Why would FARMS be laughed at for saying what everyone else has (including me)? Everyone agrees that metallurgy emerges in the Americas around 900-1000 AD. That was my point in the OP, which apparently you now agree with.

And maupayman, you're right about metallurgy being part of the mound builder myth. Here's Dan Vogel:

Observers were interested not only in who might have built the numerous mounds but also in how such engineering feats might have been accomplished. How could the mound builders have built the great pyramids, thrown up the great banks of earth, and dug the deep trenches without the use of metal tools? In 1805 Thaddeus Harris cautioned against assuming size presupposed the use of metal, however.

It is in vain to conjecture what tools or machines were employed in the construction of these works; but there is no reason to suppose that any of the implements were of iron. . . . Nothing that would answer the purpose of a shovel has ever been discovered.51

Still the dearth of examples of metal tools did not stop such conjecture, and Clinton's sentiments were undoubtedly more typical than those of Harris. The fortifications of North America, he wrote, could not "have been constructed without the use of iron or copper."52 Ethan Smith proposed that the tools had perhaps been "dissolved by rust."53 He supported his argument by detailing Atwater's discovery in an Ohio mound of what appeared to have been a small sword or a large knife. All that remained was a handle made of elk's horn and some traces of oxide, which was enough to convince Smith that the knife had once had an iron blade.54

Occasionally claims surfaced that intact metal objects had been found in the North American mounds, and mound builders were sometimes credited with objects of obvious European manufacture. The Port Folio reported in 1819 that one Tennessee mound contained "an iron sword, resembling the sabre of the Persians or Seythians."55 John Haywood claimed that in addition to clay objects "iron and steel utensils and ornaments have also been found." The Ohio mound builders, he wrote, "had swords of iron and steel, and steel bows, . . . tools also of iron and steel, and chisels with which they neatly sculptured stone, and made engravings upon it."56 In 1820 Atwater reported in the Archaeologia Americana that the mound builders "had some very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, possibly of steel." He also claimed that in Virginia "there was found about half a steel bow, which, when entire, would measure five or six feet."57 Thaddeus Harris indicated that "plates of copper have been found in some mounds, but they appear to be parts of armour."58 And Ethan Smith recorded that silver, copper, and iron had been found in the North American mounds.59

It is true that North American Indians did hammer copper and silver, but they never achieved the metallurgical sophistication required to make iron or steel, early nineteenth-century beliefs to the contrary.60 Several who first dug in the mounds were unaware that some of the works they examined dated to post-colonial times. Through careful research, the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology finally put to rest in the 1880s the idea that the mound builders were expert metallurgists.61

[Zakuska]

Why would FARMS be laughed at for saying what everyone else has (including me)? Everyone agrees that metallurgy emerges in the Americas around 900-1000 AD. That was my point in the OP, which apparently you now agree with.

I've personally seen it... I'll see if I can find some references.

[John Williams]

I've personally seen it... I'll see if I can find some references.

It doesn't matter that someone else said it. No one on this thread said it, so why would anyone here defend something we haven't suggested and do not believe?

In the end, you've accepted my position and the position of pretty much everyone else I can think of (except for a few nutjobs) about the emergence of metallurgy in the New World. If you want to say that further discoveries may change our understanding, that's fine.

[Zakuska]

It doesn't matter that someone else said it. No one on this thread said it, so why would anyone here defend something we haven't suggested and do not believe?

In the end, you've accepted my position and the position of pretty much everyone else I can think of (except for a few nutjobs) about the emergence of metallurgy in the New World. If you want to say that further discoveries may change our understanding, that's fine.

Except for the fact that you where surprised that some one would laugh at FARMS for it. Thats ok... we have bigger fish to fry.

[Zakuska]

It is true that North American Indians did hammer copper and silver, but they never achieved the metallurgical sophistication required to make iron or steel, early nineteenth-century beliefs to the contrary.60 Several who first dug in the mounds were unaware that some of the works they examined dated to post-colonial times. Through careful research, the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology finally put to rest in the 1880s the idea that the mound builders were expert metallurgists.61

The Smithsonian hath spoken... GAME OVER... man!

I trust the smithsonains sweeping generalizations about as far as I can throw them...

[John Williams]

The Smithsonian hath spoken... GAME OVER... man!

I tust the smithsonains sweeping generalizations about as far as I can throw them...

I'd say its Game Over because you haven't offered a single refutation of the OP.

I wonder what it means when you trust Clyde Winters' obviously bogus scholarship over the Smithsonian.

[Zakuska]

I'd say its Game Over because you haven't offered a single refutation of the OP.

I wonder what it means when you trust Clyde Winters' obviously bogus scholarship over the Smithsonian.

Shall I pull up the sweeping generalizations made by the Smitsonian over the years and show how modern discoveries have disproved them?

A good example is the sweeping generalization that the Spanish brought all Farm Animals like chickens to the new world. Yet a discovery just last year proved that wrong. :blush:

Heres another example of sweeping generalizations from your Dan Vogel Source above...

It is in vain to conjecture what tools or machines were employed in the construction of these works; but there is no reason to suppose that any of the implements were of iron. . . . Nothing that would answer the purpose of a shovel has ever been discovered.51

Discovery: Iron Ore Mine In Peru Pre-Dates Inca

"What we found is the only hematite mine, a type of iron also known as ochre, recorded in South America prior to the Spanish conquest. This discovery demonstrates that iron ores were important to ancient Andean civilizations."

In 2004 and 2005, Vaughn and his team excavated Mina Primavera, which is located in the Ingenio Valley of the Andes Mountains in southern Peru. The research team performed field checks and collected some samples in 2006 and 2007. The findings of the excavation are published in December's Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society.

The researchers determined that the mine is a human-made cave that was first created around 2,000 years ago. An estimated 3,710 metric tons was extracted from the mine during more than 1,400 years of use. The mine, which is nearly 700 cubic meters, is in a cliffside facing a modern ochre mine.

It doesnt mean that it never will. The Absence of Evidence isnt the Evidence of Absence.

Have we found the hill Shim? Iron ore being mined for the past 2000 years thats definatley BOM times!

However... in allfairness... the article does say this...

"Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World," he said. "Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite."

How does he know this? Never is a pretty broad blanketing term and a hasty generalization. IMHO. Im glad to know all these metal axe heads floating around where just Trophies to make the enemy jeaolous.