Jeff K. Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 The position that steel metallurgy in the Americas existed remains unproven. However it is NOT "disproven". Key difference.
hagoth7 Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 ...and yet they did not use that type of controlled heat to produce pottery.This interests me. Can you elaborate a bit?
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I'm at a loss as how this responds to the point you quoted in your reply.Yes, of course the suggestion is that the Lehites not only brought the technology with them, but, as stated in the BoM, Nephi taught his followers these sort of technologies.The point is that there is no evidence of metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica during the BoM time period. Even more problematic is the fact that there is no evidence that the ancient Mesoamericans, during the BoM time period, possessed the technology to control heat at the high temperature required for metallurgy, as witnessed in their pottery.You forget the critics party line... "Theres no way that Nephi could have smelted iron tools to build his ship, the technology didn't exist"... Yet here we have Iron tool technology all over the middle east in the time period in question. Nephi's initial use of Iron for tools is therefore not an Anachronism in the least, as Critics have been claiming for years. Its a direct Bull's eye FOR the BOM, at least in the Old world.I will give you that evidence for use of Iron for tools in MesoAmerica is wanting, but as time passes more evidence is forthcoming.
gtaggart Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 You can read the bibiographies on my website, that will give you a good idea. Yes, I had fun reading them - the Maya are a fascinating culture. I think they should get as much attention as ancient Eygpt does. Trying to understand, as much as possible, an ancient culture teaches one quite a bit about human nature in general. I strongly suggest it. I'm not upset at all. I'm also not stating anything ridiculous - I'm stating what the experts who have studied this field for decades maintain. You have absolutely no reason to worry about me.I get to decide what I want to discuss. If a thread had been started about silk or barley, I wouldn't even have participated. I haven't studied either of those issues and find them uninteresting because of their lack of overall impact. I know that many believers like to find some criticism that some skeptic made somewhere in time (like wrought iron, I've never heard that brought up as a criticism, outside the metallurgy issue), and act like all skeptics are accountable in some way for that criticism (like adieu). I address the anachronisms that I think could not possibly be "translation artifacts" due to the contextual material, and anachronisms that are significant in terms of how cultures evolve. I have no interest in trying to deal with every single accused anachronism in the book, and despite what you seem to think, I do get to decide what to study and discuss.Certainly things change. Perhaps you would like to address how metallurgy could really exist in ancient Mesoamerica and yet they did not use that type of controlled heat to produce pottery.A couple of comments, then I'll disappear into the ethernet:1. Certainly you're free to discuss what you want, but that's not what you wrote when you dismissed barley and silk. Conveniently, I think, you dismissed them because they illustrate the trajectory of Mesoamerican archeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, as discussed in John Clark's presentation in Washington D.C. a few years ago. I'm referring specifically to the Powerpoint slide he used that showed what wasn't known about Mesoamerica in Joseph's time and even in the recent past--items for which Joseph has been roundly criticized--and what we know now. 2. Kudos on your discussion of Sorenson's footnotes. Nice catch. However, excuse me if I remain skeptical of your overall presentation. You see, I remember dealing with you on ZLMB a few years ago about Martha's little book. I was stunned at your stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the possibility my arguments were valid. That you didn't agree with me was no surprise. That you would not even consider the possibilities I presented, given all the evidence in the text, was a real stunner. Thus in spite of your work on Sorenson's footnotes and regardless of the three dozen books you've read on Mesoamerica, color me skeptical of your ability to read closely and carefully texts I haven't read, when I've seen how you read a text I have read.3. Finally, I guess it's not unexpected that you are "extremely skeptical" that we'll find evidence of metallurgy in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica. However, given that I can name four Mesoamerican specialists off the top of my head who apparently disagree with you (I can't speak for them of course), excuse me if I don't jump on your bandwagon.All this said, let me say that your website is impressive, and I am also impressed with the amount of work you've put in to understand Mesoamerica. Like I said, I read other things. I do have three of Coe's books and Sorenson's book on my shelves. I've read most of Sorenson's and some of Coe's; otherwise, I read the occasional article and watch the debate from the sidelines. One day soon, I hope to dig deeper.
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 You forget the critics party line... "Theres no way that Nephi could have smelted iron tools to build his ship, the technology didn't exist"... Yet here we have Iron tool technology all over the middle east in the time period in question. Nephi's initial use of Iron for tools is therefore not an Anachronism in the least, as Critics have been claiming for years. Its a direct Bull's eye FOR the BOM, at least in the Old world.I will give you that evidence for use of Iron for tools in MesoAmerica is wanting, but as time passes more evidence is forthcoming.I have a hard time believing that critics were claiming that smelting technology didnâ??t exist in the mid-east during the BoM period. I think you are confusing another criticism, which is the specific mention of steel. 1. Certainly you're free to discuss what you want, but that's not what you wrote when you dismissed barley and silk. Conveniently, I think, you dismissed them because they illustrate the trajectory of Mesoamerican archeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, as discussed in John Clark's presentation in Washington D.C. a few years ago. I'm referring specifically to the Powerpoint slide he used that showed what wasn't known about Mesoamerica in Joseph's time and even in the recent past--items for which Joseph has been roundly criticized--and what we know now.I dismissed them because they donâ??t interest me and never have. I havenâ??t even bothered to look into whether or not your assertions that they are now BoM â??hitsâ? is correct. I do remember reading about barley, but not in Mesoamerica, (I believe it was Arizona?) and donâ??t recall reading anything about new discoveries pointing to the use of silk in Mesoamerica during the BoM time period. I donâ??t even care enough to try and refute them. If silk has been verified in ancient Mesoamerica, it must be very recent because the 1996 text Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes asserts that silk was not used in Mesoamerica until after the Conquest.Iâ??m not familiar with Clarkâ??s power point slide, but if it is based on his former BYU devotional, he listed things as hits which are questionable assertions. For example, he listed fortifications as a hit, while ignoring that other texts during JSâ?? time period attributed the same sort of fortifications to ancient Americans. I corresponded with him about this, btw, and he did concede he needed to do more investigations on some of these issues. When you have the lengthy list of anachronisms that the BoM presents, simple chance will dictate that some of them may turn out to be right. There is nothing persuasive about that, which is why I donâ??t care enough about it to investigate it all.As I said, I am only interested in the anachronisms that cannot be dismissed as translation artifacts, and anachronisms that have significant cultural impact, so evidences of these technologies, materials, or ideas can be discerned in many different ways. You can make up whatever theory you want about my lack of interest, but the focus of my website and my comments here will demonstrate to all but committed mind readers that Iâ??m being forthright about my lack of interest.2. Kudos on your discussion of Sorenson's footnotes. Nice catch. However, excuse me if I remain skeptical of your overall presentation. You see, I remember dealing with you on ZLMB a few years ago about Martha's little book. I was stunned at your stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the possibility my arguments were valid. That you didn't agree with me was no surprise. That you would not even consider the possibilities I presented, given all the evidence in the text, was a real stunner. Thus in spite of your work on Sorenson's footnotes and regardless of the three dozen books you've read on Mesoamerica, color me skeptical of your ability to read closely and carefully texts I haven't read, when I've seen how you read a text I have read.Diversion.3. Finally, I guess it's not unexpected that you are "extremely skeptical" that we'll find evidence of metallurgy in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica. However, given that I can name four Mesoamerican specialists off the top of my head who apparently disagree with you (I can't speak for them of course), excuse me if I don't jump on your bandwagon.Well, then, by all means, share their evidence with us. Iâ??m assuming that Sorenson is one of those specialists, and I also will assume, based on my interactions with apologists on this topic, that the other specialists who believe there is evidence of metallurgy during BoM times have relied on some of Sorensonâ??s assertions to form that opinion, unless you demonstrate otherwise. I know from my interaction with Brant on my â??catchâ? on Sorensonâ??s footnote that he had not checked the original source himself to verify Sorensonâ??s use of it. I would bet that neither have the others you can name.Is there anyone who can explain why, if ancient Mesoamericans during the BoM time period did, indeed, possess metallurgy technology, why did they not use this technology to control heat at high temperatures to create their pottery?All this said, let me say that your website is impressive, and I am also impressed with the amount of work you've put in to understand Mesoamerica. Like I said, I read other things. I do have three of Coe's books and Sorenson's book on my shelves. I've read most of Sorenson's and some of Coe's; otherwise, I read the occasional article and watch the debate from the sidelines. One day soon, I hope to dig deeper.Thank you. I suggest anyone truly interested in the setting of the BoM in ancient Mesoamerica take the time to dig deeper. Mesoamerica has a fascinating history and culture, aside from the BoM issue.
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 But lets get back on topic...Mosiah 11:88 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;Iron used as an Ornament... not for tools and swords."Iron Mirrors" come to my mind. Thats a bull's eye!
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I have a hard time believing that critics were claiming that smelting technology didn’t exist in the mid-east during the BoM period. I think you are confusing another criticism, which is the specific mention of steel.Iron, Steel...Either way its a Bulls eye.
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 BTW, my website is very quote-heavy. IOW, most of the site is devoted to sharing statements from the experts who have written books on the subject, so readers can judge for themselves whether or not I've fairly summarized their statements, when I've done so.Iron used as an Ornament... not for tools and swords."Iron Mirrors" come to my mind. Thats a bull's eye!The iron mirrors were small mirrors made from iron obtained from meteorites. They were used in religious ceremonies.Iron, Steel...Either way its a Bulls eye.No, it's not all the same. I can't imagine any critics would think that the ancient mid-east did NOT have smelting technology and made iron. The production of steel, however, is an even more advanced technology, with the end result being a much stronger metal. That you think it's all the same tells me you don't really understand what critics are saying.To return to the topic, "wrought iron" cannot be considered a "bull's eye" unless there is evidence of the use of wrought iron in ancient Mesoamerica. There's not.
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 BTW, my website is very quote-heavy. IOW, most of the site is devoted to sharing statements from the experts who have written books on the subject, so readers can judge for themselves whether or not I've fairly summarized their statements, when I've done so.The iron mirrors were small mirrors made from iron obtained from meteorites. They were used in religious ceremonies.No, it's not all the same. I can't imagine any critics would think that the ancient mid-east did NOT have smelting technology and made iron. The production of steel, however, is an even more advanced technology, with the end result being a much stronger metal. That you think it's all the same tells me you don't really understand what critics are saying.To return to the topic, "wrought iron" cannot be considered a "bull's eye" unless there is evidence of the use of wrought iron in ancient Mesoamerica. There's not.I see no mention of "wrought iron" in Mosiah. I do see however iron as an ORNAMENT. Olmec Iron Mirror makes it a bulls eye. Peruvian mining of several metric tons of Iron for paint pigment also makes it a bulls eye.I also see no differentiation of meteorite iron or mined iron in King Noahs use of iron to ornament his palaces.
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 You seem to be confusing Iron for tools and weapons with iron for ornamentation.Mayans did use all sorts of metal including Iron for ornamentation...http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/...9659C94619ED7CFMayan Copper Bellshttp://people.uncw.edu/simmonss/The%20Maya...y%20Project.htmMayan Queen buried in fabric that would rival Modern textileshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...a-fabric_2.htmlMeteoronic Bead necklace...http://www.jstor.org/pss/275297Thats a direct BULLS EYE Beastie!So did the Aztecs...http://www.jstor.org/pss/661077
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Nephi's initial use of Iron for tools is therefore not an Anachronism in the least, as Critics have been claiming for years.CFR that Nephi used "iron tools".9 And I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner which thou hast shown unto me?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....16 And it came to pass that I did make tools of the ore which I did molten out of the rock.I'm simply not seeing iron or steel anywhere in this. Copper or brass/bronze fits every bit as well without making the "anachronisms" of critics and dissenters reasonable. Nephi may have had iron or steel tools. I do not know. The text of the Book of Mormon does not require it, nor even hint of it. Do you have additional information?Lehi
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Nephi's Iron Ore deposites in the Land Bountifulhttp://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=2&id=225
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I see no mention of "wrought iron" in Mosiah. I do see however iron as an ORNAMENT. Olmec Iron Mirror makes it a bulls eye. Peruvian mining of several metric tons of Iron for paint pigment also makes it a bulls eye.I also see no differentiation of meteorite iron or mined iron in King Noahs use of iron to ornament his palaces.I was just using the term wrought iron because consign used the term on his thread. I understand youâ??re referring to iron used to decorate buildings. As far as your inability to differentiate between the simple working of meteorite iron versus actually mining for iron and smelting it, perhaps some googling would help. Iâ??m not sure googling will help your inability to tell the difference between the use of small mirrors in religious ceremonies and ornamenting buildings with iron, however.You seem to be confusing Iron for tools and weapons with iron for ornamentation.Mayans did use all sorts of metal including Iron for onramentation...http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/...9659C94619ED7CFThats a direct BULLS EYE Beastie!Did you actually read the article you linked? This was a link to an 1890 article describing the ruins of Uxmal. I read the article twice, and the only ornamentation it mentions is stone, plaster, and wood, which is, indeed, what Mesoamericans used to ornament their buildings. If I have missed the portion that mentions the decorative iron, please point it out. The second article on the page you linked was about artifacts from China and Japan. These artifacts, according to the article, were â??wrought in iron, gold, and silverâ?. Is it possible you simply googled some terms and didnâ??t even bother to closely read the article that came up as a hit?So did the Aztecs...http://www.jstor.org/pss/661077I suggest you google the Aztec timeline.
LeSellers Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Nephi's Iron Ore deposites in the Land BountifulI agree it is possible that Nephi used iron/steel tools. I disagree that we have to defend the position as if it were doctrine. The Book of Mormon never says they were anything more than "molten ore", which could be any sort of metal, alloy or "pure" copper, iron or what have you hard enough to be a tool, particularly a saw blade or an ax, adze or similar shaping cutting tools. Lehi
Sevenbak Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I was just using the term wrought iron because consign used the term on his thread. I understand youâ??re referring to iron used to decorate buildings. As far as your inability to differentiate between the simple working of meteorite iron versus actually mining for iron and smelting it, perhaps some googling would help. Iâ??m not sure googling will help your inability to tell the difference between the use of small mirrors in religious ceremonies and ornamenting buildings with iron, however.Did you actually read the article you linked? This was a link to an 1890 article describing the ruins of Uxmal. I read the article twice, and the only ornamentation it mentions is stone, plaster, and wood, which is, indeed, what Mesoamericans used to ornament their buildings. If I have missed the portion that mentions the decorative iron, please point it out. The second article on the page you linked was about artifacts from China and Japan. These artifacts, according to the article, were â??wrought in iron, gold, and silverâ?. Is it possible you simply googled some terms and didnâ??t even bother to closely read the article that came up as a hit?I suggest you google the Aztec timeline.Again, some one show me how this decorative iron, molded in a sea shell, is discarded as irrelevant by some here?http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/i...tifact%2012.jpghttp://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/i...tifact%2097.jpghttp://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/i...ifact%20137.jpg
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Beastie,There is more ways than one to use Iron to decorate buildings. As we have seen from the ancient Peruvian iron mines iron was used as red paint pigment. Granted Myans where obsessed with white lime stone paint.Try this one...There is not a recognized concept of “ethno-geology” but this would be the study of minerals, clays, etc that are of interest or utility to a particular culture. For the Maya these would be primarily obsidian, jadeite, cinnabar, flint (chert actually), and iron pyrite (not used as a metal but as a mirror-like utilitarian and ritual accessory.)http://www.maya-archaeology.org/tropical-M...reColumbian.phpAgain... Mayans used Iron for Decoration just like the BOM says they would.That is a Bullseye!I agree it is possible that Nephi used iron/steel tools. I disagree that we have to defend the position as if it were doctrine. The Book of Mormon never says they were anything more than "molten ore", which could be any sort of metal, alloy or "pure" copper, iron or what have you hard enough to be a tool, particularly a saw blade or an ax, adze or similar shaping cutting tools. LehiI completely agree. However since Iron ore seems to be the only accessable ore in Bountiful...
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Here again...Iron for clothes decoration as well as paint pigment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayan_DressThis was intresting...The Mayans were prolific traders exchanging gold, cotton, cocoa, fish, honey, feathers, shells, jade and obsidian as well as a variety of different handicrafts such as textile weavings, jewelry, baskets, stonework, wrought iron, ceramic and woodwork. Cocoa beans were used as money. Belize was an important trading centre for the entire Mayan area. Some major trading centers were Moho Caye, Santa Rita, Ambergris Caye and Wild Cane Caye.http://www.manospreciosas.com/information....6dd2d9af886f7c4Beastie said earlier...To return to the topic, "wrought iron" cannot be considered a "bull's eye" unless there is evidence of the use of wrought iron in ancient Mesoamerica. There's not.Heres more evidence of the use of "wrought Iron" for red paint pigment and decoration of temple plaster. This ones even from your own source!"Hematite, an iron oxide, was used to make red pigment used in the Maya codices (Coe and Kerr 1998)." http://books.google.com/books?id=BmPpbB2cX...=result#PPP1,M1Care to retract?
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Mosiah 11:88 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;It appears that since it is apparent that there is no evidence of metallurgy in ancient Mesoamerica during the BoM time period, believers on this thread are now being creative in their interpretation of this scripture. Iron was listed with other metals that would require smelting to be used to decorate buildings. Yet now believers are asking me to accept iron mirrors which were used in religious ceremonies and were crafted out of meteorite iron through simple metal working like hammering, and the use of iron pigment for coloring as â??bullâ??s eyeâ? for this scripture.Believers on this thread are asking me to accept evidence from time periods outside the BoM time frame as evidence.Believers on this thread are asking me to accept evidence from Japan and China (see Zakâ??s earlier linked article) as a bullâ??s eye. This scripture plainly lists iron, among many other metals (some of which can only be produced through metallurgy) as used to ornament buildings. I see nothing, absolutely nothing, in the almost seemingly random google â??evidencesâ? believers on this thread are offering that support this claim, much less qualify as a â??bullâ??s eyeâ?. Zak even quotes things without seeming to register what they say (see 1890 article and see this):Zakâ??s reference:There is not a recognized concept of â??ethno-geologyâ? but this would be the study of minerals, clays, etc that are of interest or utility to a particular culture. For the Maya these would be primarily obsidian, jadeite, cinnabar, flint (chert actually), and iron pyrite (not used as a metal but as a mirror-like utilitarian and ritual accessory.)Zakâ??s claim:Again... Mayans used Iron for Decoration just like the BOM says they would.That is a Bullseye!Please refer back to the Mosiah scripture and explain how the use of small iron mirrors obtained through simple hammering and other working of meteorite iron is a â??Bullseyeâ? for ornamenting buildings with iron (or the other metals). Care to retract?So says the fellow who used an article about artifacts from Japan and China to claim a "bull's eye".
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I'm simply not seeing iron or steel anywhere in this. Copper or brass/bronze fits every bit as well without making the "anachronisms" of critics and dissenters reasonable.Nephi may have had iron or steel tools. I do not know. The text of the Book of Mormon does not require it, nor even hint of it. Do you have additional information?There is no evidence of copper or brass/bronze tools in ancient Mesoamerica during the BoM time frame, either.
Sevenbak Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 There is no evidence of copper or brass/bronze tools in ancient Mesoamerica during the BoM time frame, either.You are kidding, right? There are many many mayan metal weapons that have been discovered.http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...s%3Den%26sa%3DN
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 You are kidding, right? There are many many mayan metal weapons that have been discovered.within the BoM time frameMesoamerica began smelting around roughly 800-900 AD, at which time they did begin using metal weapons. There is plenty of evidence of that, unfortunately for believers who insist that it's reasonable to accept the existence of metallurgy during the BoM time frame without any evidence (or evidence of the use of controlled high heat for pottery). I say that's unfortunate for believers because it demonstrates that it's quite possible and reasonable to expect to find evidence of metallurgy when it's actually been used. As I've already noted in Matheny's quote, there have been a few metal artifacts located in mesoamerica prior to the period in which they began smelting, but these artifacts were not of local origin.
Sevenbak Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 within the BoM time frameMesoamerica began smelting around roughly 800-900 AD, at which time they did begin using metal weapons. There is plenty of evidence of that, unfortunately for believers who insist that it's reasonable to accept the existence of metallurgy during the BoM time frame without any evidence (or evidence of the use of controlled high heat for pottery). I say that's unfortunate for believers because it demonstrates that it's quite possible and reasonable to expect to find evidence of metallurgy when it's actually been used. As I've already noted in Matheny's quote, there have been a few metal artifacts located in mesoamerica prior to the period in which they began smelting, but these artifacts were not of local origin.I guess you skipped over the early classic Mayan digs?
beastie Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 I guess you skipped over the early classic Mayan digs?Please do share this evidence. Don't bother with photographs of undated artifacts.I must add that it is remarkable that you have access to information that experts who have spent decades studying this field do not possess.
The Dude Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Heres more evidence of the use of "wrought Iron" for red paint pigment and decoration of temple plaster. This ones even from your own source!"Hematite, an iron oxide, was used to make red pigment used in the Maya codices (Coe and Kerr 1998)." http://books.google.com/books?id=BmPpbB2cX...=result#PPP1,M1Care to retract?This is getting ridiculous. Next thing we know, Zakuska is going to cite the Grand Canyon as evidence of iron as a decoration: the Navajo Sandstone is red because of iron deposits. Care to retract, beastie?
Zakuska Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 This is getting ridiculous. Next thing we know, Zakuska is going to cite the Grand Canyon as evidence of iron as a decoration: the Navajo Sandstone is red because of iron deposits. Care to retract, beastie?If several thousand metric tons of iron oxide had been excavated in the grand canyon for the express purpose of making paint as the scientists tell us you might have a point.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.