Iron as a Decoration

[John Williams]

It depends, John, on what you mean by 'testimony.'

For example, I read about the horrific experience your daughter had. (I'm exceedingly glad both that you raised such a brave, clever daughter and that she was safe! I also hope your entire family has recovered from the trauma as much as possible at this point!) I don't know what kind of legal follow-on has occurred since the intruder was caught, but, if there is to be a trial, I'm guessing ********** will be called upon to give her testimony--a best-faith account of what she personally witnessed/experienced that day. You may also be asked to give your testimony concerning the call she made to you whilst she was hiding in the downstairs bathroom.

If that's what you mean by 'testimony,' then I know what you're talking about.

But other things you've written have led me to guess that's not what you mean by 'testimony' in this context. For example, I have a hard time understanding how a phone call from a friend some years in future might lead ****** to decide that ************* didn't really break into your house whilst she was home sick last year or you to decide that she didn't really call you that day and ask if there was supposed to be someone in the house.

Yet that is exactly what you claim happened to your 'testimony' of 'Mormonism.'

And that's what leads me to suspect that our reasons for belief must differ. Because I really have personally witnessed/experienced certain things, and I'm as likely to lose my testimony of those things as your brave, beautiful daughter is to lose her testimony of what happened to her the day a burglar broke into your home.

Moreover, contrary to John Larsen's snide assertion above, my point is not to dismiss your personal experience. Universalising my personal experiences, projecting them onto you, and then claiming you were either evil or foolish for turning against them would constitute a dismissal of your experience, and I'm consciously trying to avoid that very behaviour. I'm convinced it's both more honest and more charitable simply to conclude that our experiences (and therefore reasons for belief) have been very different.

Using my daughter as some sort of bizarre object lesson is way beyond the pale. That is perhaps the lowest thing I have ever seen on this board. Beyond despicable.

[beastie]

I did find an old thread here in which I directly asked brant about the linguistic evidences:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;#entry155930

beastie:

And the linguistic evidence? Do you have something more than Sorensons' statement I cited? If not, this is evidence of the existence of metal, not metallurgy.

Brant:

Of course. Did you think I said anything different? What I have said is that an argument from silence is dangerous when there are indications of metal at earlier periods. It suggests that the archaeological void may not be to a lack of knowledge of metallurgy but a lack of finding very much.

[John Williams]

Of course. Did you think I said anything different? What I have said is that an argument from silence is dangerous when there are indications of metal at earlier periods. It suggests that the archaeological void may not be to a lack of knowledge of metallurgy but a lack of finding very much.

In what way is this linguistic evidence?

[beastie]

In what way is this linguistic evidence?

As far as I can tell, it's not.

For convenience, I'll also repost the section from Stan Larson's book, in which he went directly to Sorenson's source:

Stan Larson, in Quest for the Gold Plates, did address the issue, on page 197:

â??Historical and comparative linguistics of various Mesoamerican languages sometimes suggests the existence of a word for metal during the period from ca. 2500 B.C. to A.D. 400. Citing a study which proposed a word for metal in the reconstructed Proto-Mixtecan language, Sorenson said that â??the researchers were puzzled by the fact that a word for â??metalâ?? seemed to have existed in the protolanguage at about 1000 B.C.â? Sorenson misrepresented his source, since the linguists, Robert E. Longacre and Rene Millon, actually said:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizonâ?¦For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metalâ?¦The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence. Examination of the set suggest that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

Longacre and Millon explained that greater certainty is obtained when a group of related vocabulary terms describing a specific cultural practice is reconstructed for the protolanguage. The likelihood of the same â??semantic shiftsâ? having occurred in all of the words associated with such a practice is highly improbable. Longacre and Millon discussed six strong complexes of related terms: the Maize Complex, the Maguey Complex, the Agricultural Complex, the Masa Preparation Complex, the Weaving Complex, and the Palm Complex, but they referred again to the conjectured word for â??metalâ?? in a list of six terms excluded for various reasons. This effort to determine vocabulary items in the Proto-Mixtecan language brought forth merely a conjectured word for either metal, or a bell, or a rattle, and not a group of related metallurgic terms. This certainly does not reveal names for many different kinds of metal, such as the numerous metals required by the Book of Mormon â?? (1) gold, (2) silver, (3) iron, (4) steel, (5) copper, (6) brass, and (7) an unknown substance named â??ziffâ?.â?

As I said, what we need to see is a set of terms that are related to the practice of metallurgy. Unless Sorenson and Gardner are hiding their best evidence, there is no such set of terms. We simply have words that could mean "metal". But why would that surprise or puzzle anyone?

[gtaggart]

I did find an old thread here in which I directly asked brant about the linguistic evidences:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;#entry155930

beastie:

Brant:

So, do you agree with what Gardner says, that the linguistic evidence â??suggests that the archaeological void may not be [due] to a lack of knowledge about metallurgy but a lack of finding very much [if any]? (I put that â??if anyâ? in because I realize that you donâ??t think weâ??ve found any.)

[John Williams]

So, do you agree with what Gardner says, that the linguistic evidence "suggests that the archaeological void may not be [due] to a lack of knowledge about metallurgy but a lack of finding very much [if any]? (I put that "if any" in because I realize that you don't think we've found any.)

It's hard to say, given that no one has provided any "linguistic evidence" so far as I can see.

[beastie]

So, do you agree with what Gardner says, that the linguistic evidence â??suggests that the archaeological void may not be [due] to a lack of knowledge about metallurgy but a lack of finding very much [if any]? (I put that â??if anyâ? in because I realize that you donâ??t think weâ??ve found any.)

Sorenson and Gardner both assert that the linguistic evidence points to some word meaning "metal". If, indeed, that is the case, there is no mystery because ancient Mesoamericans were aware of and used metal - meteorite iron and native outcrops.

If, and only if, there were linguistic evidence of a group of words that, together, indicated the process of metallurgy, then that could be a void due to lack of finding evidence rather than lack of knowledge. But since I've never seen Sorenson or Gardner make that claim, and when expressly asked, Gardner stated "of course" the word was just referring to "metal", and not "metallurgy", and since I've never read any such claim made by Mesoamerican experts elsewhere, I concur with John that this can't even be called "linguistic evidence" that has anything to do with metallurgy.

As I've repeatedly stated to this point, scholars are well aware of the fact that ancient Mesoamericans engaged in metal-working (not metallurgy) from the Olmec period onward. Hence, a word referring to that material they worked with wouldn't be a puzzlement or surprising, and it certainly wouldn't be "linguistic evidence" for metallurgy.

[gtaggart]

Beastie, tell Stan Larson he owes Professor Sorenson an apology. In his book, “Quest for Gold,” Larson apparently leaves out a critical sentence from the Longacre/Millon quote he used to slam Sorenson. Herewith is the complete quote from Longacre and Millon’s article, “Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan Vocabularies: A Preliminary Cultural Analysis,” the source Sorenson referred to when he wrote,

the researchers were puzzled by the fact that a word for ‘metal’ seemed to have existed in the protolanguage at about 1000 B.C. Of course, metalworking is not supposed to have been going on then.” (An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon, 279).

The bolded part in the Sorenson quote is not included in Larson’s book. The bolded part in the quote that follows is the sentence that Larson apparently left out from the Longacre/Millon quote*:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizon. In any given set the possibility always exists that separate but parallel semantic shifts may have taken place in all the languages under consideration in the set. While this possibility is remote, it seems to have occurred in several of the sets which reconstruct in Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan. For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metal [**]. The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence. Examination of the set suggests that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

They then give two other examples—sugar cane and onion—that “yield reconstructed meanings” at odds with the historical record, then state,

We are aware of these cases only because they contradict present archeological, historical and/or botanical evidence."

The sentence that Larson left out of the Sorenson quote and the one he appears to have excised from the Longacre/Millon quote is critical to understanding why Sorenson would say the “researchers were puzzled.” Note how they write that the possibility is “remote” that the semantic shift took place in the case of the linguistic set “bell” or “metal,” but that it must have occurred because “the existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence.” That’s exactly how Sorenson characterized what he called their puzzlement.

Sorenson did not misrepresent Longacre and Millon. No way. No how. But the quote you provided from Larson’s book certainly misrepresents Sorenson.

*I say apparently because 1. There is an ellipsis where the sentence should be in the quote you provided, and 2. I searched the book’s contents on Amazon, and the missing words from the actual quote don’t show up. If you have the book, maybe you can enlighten us.

**The brackets are in the original. I’ve only removed the number 23 from inside the brackets because it is irrelevant to our discussion and might confuse the reader.

The Longacre/Millon quote is on page 22 of “Anthropological Linguistics 3” (1961).

[Anijen]

Gtaggart,

I know I bowed out of the thread but your post resurrected a peeve I have. Nothing about metallurgy but that it is evidently career-cide to go against the current thought. If there were no horses, metallurgy, grains, chickens etc etc then the unwritten rule is you dont find them and if you do you are either scorned or criticised for faulty work IE site contamination etc.

sometimes it is not until a posthumous time when a researchers find is taken seriously, which is sad IMO because it will sometimes take away a motivation to look for that "fringe" idea and many brilliant minds are wasted on what is the current status quo. Just my opinion I could be wrong.

Anijen~ who discovered wonder flonium just to have it stolen by Dr.Horrible.

[gtaggart]

Sorenson and Gardner both assert that the linguistic evidence points to some word meaning "metal". If, indeed, that is the case, there is no mystery because ancient Mesoamericans were aware of and used metal - meteorite iron and native outcrops.

If, and only if, there were linguistic evidence of a group of words that, together, indicated the process of metallurgy, then that could be a void due to lack of finding evidence rather than lack of knowledge. But since I've never seen Sorenson or Gardner make that claim, and when expressly asked, Gardner stated "of course" the word was just referring to "metal", and not "metallurgy", and since I've never read any such claim made by Mesoamerican experts elsewhere, I concur with John that this can't even be called "linguistic evidence" that has anything to do with metallurgy.

As I've repeatedly stated to this point, scholars are well aware of the fact that ancient Mesoamericans engaged in metal-working (not metallurgy) from the Olmec period onward. Hence, a word referring to that material they worked with wouldn't be a puzzlement or surprising, and it certainly wouldn't be "linguistic evidence" for metallurgy.

Balderdash. I've just cited a source where the scholars dismissed linguistic evidence for metal or metal balls because

The existence of metal or metal bells at this early stage is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence. (my emphasis)

Granted, that was in 1961, but that was apparently the state of things then and that's why Professor Sorenson characterized them as "puzzled."

[Zakuska]

Good catch GTaggart...! Beastie?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Using my daughter as some sort of bizarre object lesson is way beyond the pale. That is perhaps the lowest thing I have ever seen on this board. Beyond despicable.

John, I'm afraid you've misconstrued my post. My intent was not to be hurtful or offensive or to trivialise a very serious matter. Trust me; I know how it feels when people treat me and my personal experiences that way, and I would never purposely do the same to you.

You have posted openly about your and your daughter's experiences both on your blog and on RfM; consequently, my goal was simply to try to communicate the experiential reality of my testimony to me by comparing it to something which I know is an experiential reality to you.

I apologise unreservedly if my intent seemed otherwise. Unfortunately, as you yourself have recently written elsewhere, sometimes our attempts at honest communication are seen as hurtful by others, and they sadly end up thinking the worst of us for simply attempting to explain what we genuinely think and feel. Like you, I feel bad when that happens.

[beastie]

I'll check up on the Larson quote later today after work.

If you are correct, and the authors really did express puzzlement, it wasn't due to a lack of archaeological evidence but rather due to their own lack of awareness of the evidence. However, Sorenson cannot claim such ignorance. As I already stated, the Linne book he (erroneously) cited spent quite a bit of time discussing part of an iron mirror discovered in the same site.

So the best case scenario you can hope for is that Larson did misrepresent the authors, who were unaware of evidence of metal-working, but that Sorenson took advantage of their ignorance-based puzzlement, while knowing one of his sources discussed the use of meteorite iron.

[gtaggart]

I'll check up on the Larson quote later today after work.

If you are correct, and the authors really did express puzzlement, it wasn't due to a lack of archaeological evidence but rather due to their own lack of awareness of the evidence. However, Sorenson cannot claim such ignorance. As I already stated, the Linne book he (erroneously) cited spent quite a bit of time discussing part of an iron mirror discovered in the same site.

So the best case scenario you can hope for is that Larson did misrepresent the authors, who were unaware of evidence of metal-working, but that Sorenson took advantage of their ignorance-based puzzlement, while knowing one of his sources discussed the use of meteorite iron.

Beastie, either he misrepresented Sorenson, or you did. From what I could find, it was Larson, but I don't have his book and can only search part of it on Amazon. I'm fairly confident it was Larson's fault.

As to your "best case scenario," give it up. The quote that apparently Larson misrepresented is on page 279 of Sorenson's book. On page 278, just three paragraphs before that quote, Sorenson has just begun his discussion of metals. In the first paragraph of that discussion, he lays out his basic thesis, including this sentence:

The position of orthodox archaeologists has long been that nowhere in Mesoamerica were metals used before about A.D. 900.

He then states:

In 1954 I published two articles that presented evidence for the existence of metal objects from Mesoamerica archaeological sites well before the accepted date of A.D. 900. Further finds would be needed, I concluded, before the question of dating could be settled.

So from the very first, Sorenson is not hiding the ball as you claim. No, he states up front that he was aware of metal in pre-A.D. 900 times. Two paragraphs later, after briefly mentioning some pre A.D. 900 finds, he writes:

In addition to surely early specimens, other finds, not firmly dated, could be pre-A.D. 900; a late date has been inferred from some of them mainly because metal was found and "everybody knows" that metal occurs only in late sites. (italics in the original)

It's in the next paragraph that he uses Longacre/Millon to illustrate this. He is arguing that they didn't accept the words "metal" or "metal bells." Why?

Of course, metalworking is not supposed to have been going on then.

Sorenson is not hiding the ball. He's making an argument. Of course he knew of earlier finds--and he said so. He was simply making the case that orthodox archaeologists--in this case linguists--didn't recognize or accept the evidence they found because "'everybody knows' that metal occurs only in late sites."

[Zakuska]

Sorenson is not hiding the ball. He's making an argument. Of course he knew of earlier finds--and he said so. He was simply making the case that orthodox archaeologists--in this case linguists--didn't recognize or accept the evidence they found because "'everybody knows' that metal occurs only in late sites."

Yep... how is that for "would'a, could'a, should'a"... they do the same thing with all the horse and elephant evidence that has been found as well.

[beastie]

The ellipses are in Larsonâ??s book, but I donâ??t agree that what Larson clipped would have fundamentally changed the meaning of the citation.Larsonâ??s quote:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizonâ?¦For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metalâ?¦The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence. Examination of the set suggest that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

Longacre full quote:

The linguistic evaluation of a set provides the framework for its cultural evaluation, but however strong it may be linguistically this does not provide proof that the specific aspect of Proto-Mixtecan or Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan life it represents actually existed on that horizon. In any given set the possibility always exists that separate but parallel semantic shifts may have taken place in all the languages under consideration in the set. While this possibility is remote, it seems to have occurred in several of the sets which reconstruct in Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan. For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning of bell or perhaps metal [**]. The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence. Examination of the set suggests that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain of this.

You seem to be suggesting that Longacre is saying that the meaning of the word X (apparently in various languages) in question should have categorically meant â??metalâ?. This would have resulted in puzzlement because there is no archaeological evidence (according to the authors) of the existence of metal at that point. This is not how I understand this passage at all. I understand the passage to be saying that there were a couple of possibilities for word X, but for the nonmetal possibilities to be correct a â??parallel semantic shift may have taken place in all the languages under consideration in the set.â? That is what is remote, but the authors believed occurred. I donâ??t see how omitting the line about parallel shifts being remote, but having occurred, helps your case at all. IOW, the â??semantic shiftâ? is a change in the meaning of a word. Longacre seems to be suggesting that there was, indeed, a semantic shift across several sets (which I interpret to mean different languages in question), and that is why the word that would seem to mean â??metalâ? really meant â??rattleâ?.

Now, not having access to Longacreâ??s article and not knowing exactly what later transpired with this particular set, I have no idea if Longacre turned out to be correct that a semantic shift occurred, or if the set actually did refer to the metal we know ancient Mesoamericans worked with (not metallurgy). But I am left uncertain as to why you think this strengthens Sorensonâ??s case. Perhaps you can clarify more.

Granted, that was in 1961, but that was apparently the state of things then and that's why Professor Sorenson characterized them as "puzzled."

I return your balderdash.

At the time he used this reference, Sorenson was aware of the fact that there was evidence that meteorite iron was hammered and fashioned into iron mirrors. I know this because he referenced Sigvald Linneâ??s book, â??Mexican Highland Culturesâ? in his own book. I already explained that Sorensonâ??s citation from this book was incorrect, but I am assuming, of course, that he actually did read the book. In fact, Linneâ??s statement about the iron mirror was actually in the same dig that Sorenson claimed contained evidence of smelting. Hereâ??s what Sigvald Linne, part of mainstream archaeology, stated in that book, page 147:

â??Of peculiar character are a rounded object, fig. 236, and fragments of a circular plate, both from Burial 1. The latter, which has the appearance of rusty iron, may have been a mirror. Analysis has shown both of them to contain a large proportion of sulphur and iron, and they are undoubtedly iron pyrite. There can be no doubt that certain pre-Spanish objects described as being of iron are nothing but pyrite. Weathering has made them look rusty. The diameter of the flat disc is 6 cm, which roughly corresponds to the average size of the Mexican pyrite mirrors included in Nordenskioldâ??s study of convex and concave mirrors in America. Unfortunately the surface is so badly weathered that it is impossible to determine the way in which it is ground. Nordenskiold has, however, found that the majority of pre-Spanish mirrors â?? all of them from Mexico, Ecuador, and the Peruvian coast â?? are convex and consist of pyrite. In Musee de lâ??Homme, Paris, there is one which forms part of Charnayâ??s collection and is stated to have come from Teotihuacan. Nordenskiold further adduces a Mexican picture-writing in which among other things is seen a man using a mirror. The picture-writing in question is said to originate from Cholula. Mirrors were naturally in great demand as an article of trade and even formed part of the barter goods with which the great raft that Bartolome Ruiz in 1526 encountered off the coast of Ecuador was loaded.â?

Linneâ??s book was first published in 1942. Linne was a well-respected and well-known orthodox archaeologist â?? whose book Sorenson cited as a source. Nordenskioldâ??s work, btw, was even earlier. In the introduction to Linneâ??s book, Nordenskiold is discussed, and his work took place in the 1920s. He died in 1932.

Sorenson is not hiding the ball. He's making an argument. Of course he knew of earlier finds--and he said so. He was simply making the case that orthodox archaeologists--in this case linguists--didn't recognize or accept the evidence they found because "'everybody knows' that metal occurs only in late sites."

There are two balls in question here. One ball is the existence of simple metal. The other ball is the existence of metallurgy. Sorenson is using evidence of metal to try and build a case for metallurgy, as far as the linguistic evidence is concerned. It is possible that linguists were not as fully aware of the extant archaeological evidence as a dirt archaeologist like Linne would have been. But none of this changes these facts:

1. Sorenson and Gardner consistently refer to linguistic evidence for metal to provide support for the BoMâ??s claims of metallurgy. This is very misleading, but probably is not noticed by the majority of their readers.

2. When he wrote Ancient American Setting, Sorenson was familiar with and used at least one text (I say at least one because I havenâ??t checked his other sources), written by an orthodox archaeologist in 1942, that plainly discussed the evidence of pyrite mirrors, and said that â??mirrors were in great demandâ?. The work of this orthodox archaeologist in 1942 utilized the work of another well-respected, orthodox archaeologist in the 1920s, Nordenskiold. It is strains credulity to suggest that, even after having read and used Linne as a source, Sorenson really was completely unaware of the evidence for the use of iron in the production of pyrite mirrors. I maintain it was misleading for him to state that orthodox archaeologists, in 1961, did not believe any form of metal existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the specified time period.

Yep... how is that for "would'a, could'a, should'a"... they do the same thing with all the horse and elephant evidence that has been found as well.

Yeah, durn those archaeologists who turn up their noses at evidence the like of Ica stones.

[Zakuska]

You had me until here...

It is strains credulity to suggest that, even after having read and used Linne as a source, Sorenson really was completely unaware of the evidence for the use of iron in the production of pyrite mirrors. I maintain it was misleading for him to state that orthodox archaeologists, in 1961, did not believe any form of metal existed in ancient Mesoamerica during the specified time period.

Then I fell off your train of thought...

Where did he state it? Or was it merely a suggestion of a reason for the archeologists not knowing somthing or being puzzled at something?

[beastie]

Page 279, An Ancient Setting:

The position of orthodox archaeologists has long been that nowhere in Mesoamerica were metals used before about AD 900.

[Zakuska]

This was intresting:

The Ancient Maya, 4th ed - By Morley

Metalwork

Metal objects from Classic-period Maya centers are rare. A pair of legs belonging to a small, hollow figurine made of gold-copper alloy (Fig. 13.25c) was found at Copan. Analysis of this alloy, and of casting technique employed, suggests that it was made in lower, Central America (Costa Rica or

The Book Preview cuts off the rest.

Mayan Classic period 300 - 900 AD http://www.cancunsouth.com/plan_hist_clas.html

300 AD is Book of Mormon times Beastie.

[beastie]

Zak - Just because something was made during the classic period does not mean you get to claim it was made in 300 AD instead of, say, 800 AD, the approximate date which most scholars agree was the beginning of metallurgy.

[Zakuska]

But it also doesn't mean you get to claim that it wasn't. Scholars and Scientists are guessing Beastie.

[beastie]

But it also doesn't mean you get to claim that it wasn't. Scholars and Scientists are guessing Beastie.

If you truly believe scholars and scientists are "guessing", then there is absolutely no reason for you to even discuss the matter.

It strikes me that you have very little background knowledge and understanding of the entire topic. Perhaps it's time to do a google search on how archaeologists date artifacts.

[Zakuska]

Here is a breif history of Copan...

The fertile Cop

[beastie]

Amazing. You can construct an entire fantasy out of one incomplete reference.

[Zakuska]

Actually... it was being farmed since before 900BC... so we actually have a date range of 900BC to 822AD. We also have to take into account that Peru was already producing cast metal at the time. Was there trading going on? Is this Action Figure even Mayan? Or was it traded with the sea fairing Pervians?