Jaredite Steel?

[John Williams]

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...

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.

Now you're just flailing, Zak. Ochre mining in South America in no way negates Vogel's statement about Mound Builder metallurgy. Ochre was used for pigment and dye, not swords and tools. There is no hasty generalizing going on in the statement about the Mound Builders.

[Zakuska]

Get your facts straight John...

Hematite, also spelled h

[John Williams]

Get your facts straight John...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

It can be used for red pigment but its not always red.

Did I say it was red?

I said your quotes about South American ochre mining have nothing to do with Dan Vogel's statements about the Mound Builders. What connection do you see between southern Peruvian ochre mines and the lack of metallurgy among the Hopewell? That's the problem; there is no connection.

Anything to keep the unfaith!

Actually, it's anything to counter bad apologetics. If there were a good reason to believe, I would. I have no interest in protecting my lack of belief. In this thread you twice accused me of believing Native Americans and Africans were "too stupid" to learn metallurgy; now you're suggesting that I am dishonestly trying to prop up my lack of belief. Enough is enough, Zak.

[Zakuska]

So you are telling me the Native Americans in Mesoamerica couldn't have made it to Peru and made swords?

Anything to maintain unbeleif John...

[John Williams]

So you are telling me the Native Americans in Mesoamerica couldn't have made it to Peru and made swords?

Beats me. Apparently there's no evidence of that. But then the Peruvians weren't making swords. They were mining ochre.

Anything to maintain unbeleif John...

I think I am done with this thread. You have no right to say something like that to me.

[Zakuska]

Beats me. Apparently there's no evidence of that. But then the Peruvians weren't making swords. They were mining ochre.

I think I am done with this thread. You have no right to say something like that to me.

Yeah how many tons of it... You think that all ended up on temple walls?

Here we have IRON ORE being mined for the last 2000 years by native americans. Thats darn close to Jaredite times.

Lets keep our eyes open and watch where All that ore went.

Hematite and ilmenite form a complete solid solution at temperatures above 950

[John Williams]

Yeah how many tons of it... You think that all ended up on temple walls?

Here we have IRON ORE being mined for the last 2000 years by native americans. Thats darn close to Jaredite times.

Lets keep our eyes open and watch where All that ore went.

This hematite ore is well within the means to have done the Job.

We already know they fired bricks and lime at that temperature.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to remind you that you're still 1500-3000 years off from Jaredite times, not to mention geographically separate, and mining iron ore does not equal smelting. Not darn close by any means.

As I said, I am not going to participate in this thread any longer. I draw the line when someone questions my honesty.

[Zakuska]

Against my better judgment, I'm going to remind you that you're still 1500-3000 years off from Jaredite times, not to mention geographically separate, and mining iron ore does not equal smelting. Not darn close by any means.

As I said, I am not going to participate in this thread any longer. I draw the line when someone questions my honesty.

Yep as preidcted the goal posts have moved again. Until we find an iron coin stamped with "Zarahemla 1AD" it will never be enough for the critic.

For the record... I never questioned your "honesty" I questioned your motives and objectivity, as well as your creative thinking. I think Im going to make a thread to document how the critical argument keeps creeping away as new finds are made.

I'd sure like to know where "3,710 metric tons" of Iron ore went over the last 2000 years. I know... Maybe the dogs of those dumb Native Americans ate it all?!

[Chris Smith]

Yep as preidcted the goal posts have moved again.

You're joking, right? It's well known that ancient Mesoamericans carved things like beads, toys, and musical instruments out of iron ore. They did not smelt it. The goalposts haven't moved at all.

[Zakuska]

You're joking, right? It's well known that ancient Mesoamericans carved things like beads, toys, and musical instruments out of iron ore. They did not smelt it. The goalposts haven't moved at all.

Have any evidence they did not smelt it? besides scholars 2000 years later sitting in their Ivory towers pontificated on lack of evidence. Can you guarentee that some time in that past 2000 years some one never smelted any of the ore?

[Chris Smith]

Have any evidence they did not smelt it? besides scholars 2000 years later sitting in their Ivory towers pontificated on lack of evidence.

Why would they carve it if they could smelt it?

[Zakuska]

Why would they carve it if they could smelt it?

Well lets see... Why would I put wood in a Lathe and make porch posts when I could just as easily get PVC porch products that would last a lot longer.

Maybe I like wood.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it has to be done.

[SolarPowered]

Jaredite steel is not anachronistic.

According to this article, there exist in the Old World at least three examples of very old smelted iron, two of which date to 3000 to 3500 B.C, and the third which dates to 5000 B.C.

The Jaredites, of course, came from the Old World. They were a favored people, being the only ones, or one of a very few, whose language was not confounded. It is highly plausible that they would have had access to the existing iron-smelting technology, and would have brought it with them to the New World.

Shule was the great-grandson of Jared. Thus, his steel-smelting occurred within a fairly short time, generationally speaking, after they arrived in the New World. It is again highly plausible that iron-smelting technology would still be known.

I would expect that little if any iron or steel would remain in Mesoamerica from that time. The conditions are just too wet for iron or steel to hang around for long. Also, as the article by the dentist that Zak has pointed to several times (http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm) points out, archaeologists in the Americas long ago decided that there was no smelting here in early times, and therefore are oblivious to signs of such activities. Given the combination of these items: 1) There is no indication in the BoM that Jaredite smelting was widespread; 2) It happened a long, long time ago; 3) Very little has been excavated from likely early Jaredite sites; 4) Most American archaeologists apparently wouldn't recognize an ironworking furnace if it hit them over the head; it does not surprise me that no evidence has been recognized from that time.

In any case, it is false to say that Jaredite smelting of iron ore is anachronistic, because iron smelting was in fact known at the time the Jaredites left the Old World, and there is no reason at all to suppose that the great-grandson of Jared could not have still understood the technology.

[Zakuska]

Theres another twist to this story to think about... What where the Hebrews doing in Egypt for 420 years? People automaticlly think they where building Pyramids... Not So!

Ex. 5: 7, 16, 18

7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

16 There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

18 Go therefore now, and work; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.

They where making a city out of Bricks.

Where did the Jaredites Come From?

Genesis 11

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

The Tower of Babel, They where BRICK Masons... and would they not continue in their trade?

The only place fired Brick is used in construction in MesoAmerica is in the Yucatan among the Mayans and the Olmecs! (Remember the 4000 Fired Bricks found in Meso America?)

The Truth is in the Technologies man!

[John Williams]

Jaredite steel is not anachronistic.

According to this article, there exist in the Old World at least three examples of very old smelted iron, two of which date to 3000 to 3500 B.C, and the third which dates to 5000 B.C.

The Jaredites, of course, came from the Old World. They were a favored people, being the only ones, or one of a very few, whose language was not confounded. It is highly plausible that they would have had access to the existing iron-smelting technology, and would have brought it with them to the New World.

Shule was the great-grandson of Jared. Thus, his steel-smelting occurred within a fairly short time, generationally speaking, after they arrived in the New World. It is again highly plausible that iron-smelting technology would still be known.

I would expect that little if any iron or steel would remain in Mesoamerica from that time. The conditions are just too wet for iron or steel to hang around for long. Also, as the article by the dentist that Zak has pointed to several times (http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm) points out, archaeologists in the Americas long ago decided that there was no smelting here in early times, and therefore are oblivious to signs of such activities. Given the combination of these items: 1) There is no indication in the BoM that Jaredite smelting was widespread; 2) It happened a long, long time ago; 3) Very little has been excavated from likely early Jaredite sites; 4) Most American archaeologists apparently wouldn't recognize an ironworking furnace if it hit them over the head; it does not surprise me that no evidence has been recognized from that time.

In any case, it is false to say that Jaredite smelting of iron ore is anachronistic, because iron smelting was in fact known at the time the Jaredites left the Old World, and there is no reason at all to suppose that the great-grandson of Jared could not have still understood the technology.

Now, that's a more reasonable answer. Thanks. No, iron smelting is not anachronistic in parts of the Old World, as you said. Steel smelting in the New World is a little more problematic. But it's nice to actually have someone post without accusing me of being a racist or being dishonest.

[Zakuska]

Heres the last reference from the dentist its online.

The first inquiry suggested by an inspection of the mounds and other earth‑works of the West, relates to the means at the command of the builders in their construction. However dense we may suppose the ancient population to have been, we must regard these works as entirely beyond their capabilities, unless they possessed some artificial aids. As an agricultural people, they must have had some means of clearing the land of forests and of tilling the soil. We can hardly conceive, at this day, how these operations could be performed without the aid of iron; yet we know that the Mexicans and Peruvians, whose monuments emulate the proudest of the old world, were wholly unacquainted with the uses of that metal, and constructed their edifices and carried on their agricultural operations with implements of wood, stone, and copper. They possessed the secret of hardening the metal last named, so as to make it subserve most of the uses to which iron is applied. Of it they made axes, chisels, and knives. The mound‑builders, also, worked it into similar implements, although it is not yet certain that they contrived to give it any extraordinary hardness. A number of axes have been extracted from their depositories the general form of which is well exhibited in the accompanying engraving.

The relics found in the mounds are such only as, from the nature of the materials of which they are composed, have been able to resist the general course of decay: -articles of pottery, bone, shell, stone, and metal. We can, \46\ of course, expect to find but slight traces of instruments or utensils of wood, and but few, and doubtful ones at best, of the materials which went to compose articles of dress.

The first inquiry suggested by an inspection of the mounds and other earth‑works of the West, relates to the means at the command of the builders in their construction. However dense we may suppose the ancient population to have been, we must regard these works as entirely beyond their capabilities, unless they possessed some artificial aids. As an agricultural people, they must have had some means of clearing the land of forests and of tilling the soil. We can hardly conceive, at this day, how these operations could be performed without the aid of iron; yet we know that the Mexicans and Peruvians, whose monuments emulate the proudest of the old world, were wholly unacquainted with the uses of that metal, and constructed their edifices and carried on their agricultural operations with implements of wood, stone, and copper. They possessed the secret of hardening the metal last named, so as to make it subserve most of the uses to which iron is applied. Of it they made axes, chisels, and knives. The mound‑builders, also, worked it into similar implements, although it is not yet certain that they contrived to give it any extraordinary hardness. A number of axes have been extracted from their depositories the general form of which is well exhibited in the accompanying engraving.

This specimen was found in a mound near Chillicothe. It consists of a solid, well-\47\hammered piece of copper, and weighs two pounds and five ounces. It is seven inches long by four broad at the cutting edge, and has an average thickness of little less than four‑tenths of an inch. Its edge is slightly curved, somewhat after the manner of the axes of the present day, and is bevelled from both surfaces. In size and shape it coincides very nearly with those possessed by the Mexicans and Peruvians, and was probably fastened and used in a similar way. Copper chisels, gravers, &c. have also been found in the mounds. The metal seems, however, to have been more generally applied to ornamental than useful purposes ; for, while articles of ornament are common in both the sacrificial and sepulchral mounds, copper implements are comparatively rare. It is possible that ornaments were more generally placed in the mounds than articles of use; such certainly is the case in respect to the mounds of sepulture. Copper beads, bracelets, gorgets, &c. &c. are of frequent occurrence

Silver has also been found, but in small quantities, reduced to great thinness, and closly wrapped around copper ornaments. This is done so skillfully as scarcely to be detected, and is the nearest approach to plating yet discovered. The ore of lead, galena, has been 'found in considerable abundance, and some of the metal itself under circumstances implying a knowledge of its use on the part of the ancient people. The discovery of gold has been vaguely announced, but is not well attested. It is not impossible that articles of that metal have been found, with other vestiges of European art, accompanying secondary and recent deposites; and it is far from impossible or even improbable, judging from the extensive intercourse which they seem to have maintained, that the metal may yet be disclosed under such circumstances as to justify the conclusion that it was not entirely unknown to the mound‑builders. No iron or traces of iron have been discovered, except in connection with recent deposites; and there is no reason \48\ to believe that the race of the mounds had the slightest acquaintance with its uses.*

* It is unnecessary to remark that all accounts of the discovery of iron in the mounds, or under such circumstances as to imply a date prior to the Discovery, are sufficiently vague and unsatisfactory. The fragment of an iron wedge, found in a rock near Salem, Washington county, Ohio, and which has been alluded to by several writers upon American antiquities, does not probably possess an antiquity of more than fifty years. It is now in the possession of Dr. S. P. Hildreth, of Marietta, and its history, stripped of all that is not well authenticated, is simply that it was found fastened in a cleft of a rock, and no, one could tell how it came there ! The only authority for the discovery of iron in the mounds, is the author of the paper on American antiquities, in the first volume of the Archaeologia Americana, who states that, in a mound at Circleville, Ohio, was found amongst other articles "a plate of iron which had become an oxyde, but before it was distributed by the spade resembled a plate of cast iron." (Archaeol. Am. Vol. i., p. 178.) It is obviously no easy matter to detect iron when fully oxydized in the earth ; and when we are obliged to base our conclusions respecting the use of that metal, by an evidently rude people, upon such remains, if any there be, the strictest examination should be given them ; appearances alone should be disregarded, and conclusions, after all, drawn with extreme caution. Whether it is likely the requisite discrimination and judgment were exercised in this case, it is not undertaken to say. But few masses of native iron, and these of small size and meteoric origin, have been found in this country ; consequently the presence of iron to any extent amongst the mound‑builders, can be accounted for only on the assumption that they understood the difficult art of reducing it from the ores, which involves a degree of knowledge and an advance in the arts of civilization, not attained by the Mexicans nor by the Peruvians, and not sustained by the authenticated remains, of the mounds.

http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/Squier_1847.htm

[Zakuska]

Heres some Incan Copper Chisels and Knifes:

http://www.precolumbianweapons.com/knives.htm

Axes:

http://www.precolumbianweapons.com/axe.htm

Body Armor:

http://www.precolumbianweapons.com/armor.htm

[Cold Steel]

The first three references to steel in the Book of Mormon are these:

And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel. (1 Nephi 4:9)

And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food. (1 Nephi 16:18)

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. (2 Nephi 5:15)

We know that Nephi's bow really wasn't made out of what we now know to be steel. Neither was it likely made of metal at all, but of strong wood.

Looking at the definition of "steel" we read:

1. Iron combined with a small portion of carbon; iron refined and hardened, used in making instruments, and particularly useful as the material of edged tools. It is called in chimistry, carburet of iron; but this is more usually the denomination of plumbago. 2. Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like. Example: Brave Macbeth with his brandish'd steel. ... 4. Extreme hardness; as heads or hearts of steel. (American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828)

And from the same source we see secondary applications:

STEEL (2), v.t. To overlay, point or edge with steel; as, to steel the point of a sword; to steel a razor; to steel an ax. 2. To make hard or extremely hard. Example: O God of battles, steel my soldiers' hearts. Lies well steel'd with weighty arguments. 3. To make hard; to make insensible or obdurate; as, to steel the heart against pity; to steel the mind or heart against reproof or admonition.

The word steel comes from "strength." The meaning, therefore, must be used in context.

Isn't it more likely that Nephi's bow was a strong bow, rather than one made of hard metal? Based on how the word is used by the Book of Mormon authors, I would say that "steel" could very likely refer to strong wood or strong metal. Iron, alone, wouldn't take a significant edge. Bronze, however, did. Later, references were made to swords being "stained," meaning they were probably made of wood and obsidian. I say probably because such weapons have been found in the areas now almost universally believed to be the Book of Mormon lands.

The three possibilities are:

1) Joseph Smith made a mistake while writing the Book of Mormon, and this proves he's a fraud, or...

2) That the translation is correct, but we are failing to interpret the word correctly, or...

3) The words actually do mean steel, and the BoM peoples were that much more advanced.

My vote, of course, is number 2, which is much more likely. But check out this article for even more of a background.

Both the Mayans and Aztecs used wooden sword-like weapons with blades sharp enought to kill in battle. Other weapons appeared to be wood swords embedded with obsidian, then chipped by stones to form extremely sharp weapons and tools. Some of the former were engraved and decorated in a way that indicated they were valuable to their owners.

So what about the origins of the word "steel"? Was the term applied to strength because the metal was strong? Or was the metal called "steel" because it was strong?

Since the Book of Mormon was translated correctly, the only rational explanation for the confusion is our own ignorance of the word itself or, if not ignorance, our misapplication of the wrong meaning.

Bronze Age swords.

[SolarPowered]

Isn't it more likely that Nephi's bow was a strong bow, rather than one made of hard metal?

Perhaps.

On the other hand, our Gospel Doctrine teacher actually happened to talk about this today. When she lived in France, she lived near a museum that had a substantial collection of things from the 600 B.C. time frame. She said that she literally lost track of how many steel bows from around 600 B.C. that she saw there.

[John Williams]

Perhaps.

On the other hand, our Gospel Doctrine teacher actually happened to talk about this today. When she lived in France, she lived near a museum that had a substantial collection of things from the 600 B.C. time frame. She said that she literally lost track of how many steel bows from around 600 B.C. that she saw there.

I tracked down the Waldbaum source for iron objects (14 in all) being dated to 3500-5000 BC. 3 are hammered meteorite iron, so that leaves 11. How were they created? Here's Dr. Waldbaum:

Since it is relatively easy to produce small quantities of iron accidentally through the smelting of copper or lead, this seems more likely than the use of native iron, which in any case should be sought among objects containing small amounts of nickel and cobalt. ("The Coming of Iron in the Eastern Mediterranean," in The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World,p. 30).

I guess the best possible answer is that the production of steel swords was an accidental by-product of copper smelting, though the text suggests that the smelting was a known and deliberate practice.

[Cold Steel]

See Kevin Barney's On Nephi's Steel Bow, February 2006.

This remarkable drawing was found in a cave near

Cedar City, Utah. It actually shows a figure labeled

"Nephi" in plain English, followed by the term, "Steel

Bow," with an arrow pointing towards the figure's

weapon. Elmer Grangely, who studies cave drawings

as a hobby, said he thinks this dates back to about

547 B.C., and that it may have been drawn by Nephi,

himself. When asked why the figures would be labeled

in English, Grangely said that it was clearly written

for future generations of gentiles. Sight-seeers can

see this drawing for themselves for only $17.45,

which includes a tour by Grangely and a bagged lunch,

made by Grangely's wife, Gail Gantry Granger. Call

1-801-555-GOTU for more information.

.

[John Williams]

See Kevin Barney's On Nephi's Steel Bow, February 2006.

This remarkable drawing was found in a cave near

Cedar City, Utah. It actually shows a figure labeled

"Nephi" in plain English, followed by the term, "Steel

Bow," with an arrow pointing towards the figure's

weapon. Elmer Grangely, who studies cave drawings

as a hobby, said he thinks this dates back to about

547 B.C., and that it may have been drawn by Nephi,

himself. When asked why the figures would be labeled

in English, Grangely said that it was clearly written

for future generations of gentiles. Sight-seeers can

see this drawing for themselves for only $17.45,

which includes a tour by Grangely and a bagged lunch,

made by Grangely's wife, Gail Gantry Granger. Call

1-801-555-GOTU for more information.

.

Barney's article somewhat successfully explains Nephi's steel bow, but does not apply to Shule's swords, which are "molten" from the mountain into steel. The problem is still there, and it's still anachronistic.

But I love the Grangely piece.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just a quick note (which may have been mentioned since I haven't read through the whole thread carefully). John W wrote:

How do you explain the presence of steel smelting so early in Mesoamerican history?

This doesn't occur early in Mesoamerican history. The text of Ether is quite late (written by Moroni). It is full of editorial content and redaction. It claims to reference (not to be) a translation of an earlier text (was it a translation made by Moroni or by Mosiah?). I don't think that the use of the word "steel" here in this particular place can tell us very much at all about the metalurgical skills of the Jaredites.

Ben

[John Williams]

Just a quick note (which may have been mentioned since I haven't read through the whole thread carefully). John W wrote:

This doesn't occur early in Mesoamerican history. The text of Ether is quite late (written by Moroni). It is full of editorial content and redaction. It claims to reference (not to be) a translation of an earlier text (was it a translation made by Moroni or by Mosiah?). I don't think that the use of the word "steel" here in this particular place can tell us very much at all about the metalurgical skills of the Jaredites.

Ben

To me, the steel anachronism is secondary to the smelting anachronism. Are you suggesting that the translator/redactor took editorial license with the text to indicate "moltening" when there was none?

[SolarPowered]

Again, Jaredite smelting is not an anachronism. It existed in the Old World they left from, and there is nothing that would have prevented them from bringing it with them the New World.

You can argue that there is no known evidence for it in the New World, but it is not anachronistic.