Iron as a Decoration

[gtaggart]

I’ll be brief, and I’ll not be debating this further (all emphasis is mine):

1. Larson misrepresented Sorenson because he ripped Sorenson’s use of the Longacre/Millon source from the context of his argument: That the position of orthodox archaeologists was that metals were not used in Mesoamerica pre-A.D. 900.

2. Larson misrepresented Sorenson because he omitted a critical part of a Sorenson quote, a part that ties the source use back into his thesis: “Of course, metalworking is not supposed to have been going on then.”

3. Larson misrepresented Sorenson when he excised—for no apparent reason*—the sentence from the Longacre/Million article that said “While this possibility is remote, it seems to have occurred in several of the sets [metal and metal bells, sugar cane and onion] which reconstruct in Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan.” Why is this important? Because it removes from the reader’s view that Longacre/Millon were arguing for a “remote” ”possibility” that “seeme[d] to” (in other words, had to have) happened simply because “the existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence.” An uncharitable person might say they were doing headstands to avoid the obvious: metal was used in Mesoamerica pre-A.D. 900. Sorenson simply said they were puzzled.

4. Larson is roughly correct that Lonacre/Millon later referred “to the conjectured word for ‘metal’ in a list of six terms excluded for various reasons.” What he doesn’t mention is that the only reason given for excluding metal and metal bells is “This set has already been discussed. (See section on criteria of final evaluation above.)” (pg. 29) As far as I can tell**, that is a reference back to the paragraph on page 22 that is at issue and that we’ve been discussing. In other words, the only reason Longacre/Millon excluded metal and metal bells is those words don’t comport with “existing archeological evidence.”

You write semantic shift is “why the word that would seem to mean “metal” really meant “bell.” That goes beyond the evidence. Longacre/Millon actually wrote that is “impossible to be certain of this.” Remember, it appears that the only reason they suggested the new meaning in the first place is because the words “metal” and “metal bells” didn’t comport with exisiting archaeological evidence.

As to the balderdash, of course Sorenson knew that others knew that there was evidence of metal in pre-A.D. 900 Mesoamerica. He said so in the very pages of his book we’re discussing, and he refers to work he had done citing references to that evidence. So for you to argue that he was misleading strains what credulity

I have left. Helly belly, he even talked about Longacre/Millon, two Mesoamerican linguists who in 1961 apparently were reluctant to go against the orthodoxy (my words not Sorenson’s).

If you want to nip at the heels of his use of the word orthodox, have at it. I’ve already been down a similar road with you. I’ll not go down that road again.

Larson misused Sorenson, you have now been made aware of that. I hope to see a change on your website soon.

*Riddle me this beastie, why would Larson excise that 24-word sentence from the quote? Why did he cut the Sorenson quote short? Talk about straining credulity.

** I should mention, that I have read pages 22 and 29 carefully and scanned the rest of the pages of the article. Words or sets were always underlined or in all caps, so if the words metal or metal bells were on the other pages, I should have seen them. However, I'm open to correction.

[Anijen]

Iâ??ll be brief, and Iâ??ll not be debating this further (all emphasis is mine):

1. Larson misrepresented Sorenson because he ripped Sorensonâ??s use of the Longacre/Millon source from the context of his argument: That the position of orthodox archaeologists was that metals were not used in Mesoamerica pre-A.D. 900.

2. Larson misrepresented Sorenson because he omitted a critical part of a Sorenson quote, a part that ties the source use back into his thesis: â??Of course, metalworking is not supposed to have been going on then.â?

3. Larson misrepresented Sorenson when he excisedâ??for no apparent reason*â??the sentence from the Longacre/Million article that said â??While this possibility is remote, it seems to have occurred in several of the sets [metal and metal bells, sugar cane and onion] which reconstruct in Proto-Mixtecan and Proto-Amuzgo-Mixtecan.â? Why is this important? Because it removes from the readerâ??s view that Longacre/Millon were arguing for a â??remoteâ? â?possibilityâ? that â??seeme[d] toâ? (in other words, had to have) happened simply because â??the existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archeological evidence.â? An uncharitable person might say they were doing headstands to avoid the obvious: metal was used in Mesoamerica pre-A.D. 900. Sorenson simply said they were puzzled.

4. Larson is roughly correct that Lonacre/Millon later referred â??to the conjectured word for â??metalâ?? in a list of six terms excluded for various reasons.â? What he doesnâ??t mention is that the only reason given for excluding metal and metal bells is â??This set has already been discussed. (See section on criteria of final evaluation above.)â? (pg. 29) As far as I can tell**, that is a reference back to the paragraph on page 22 that is at issue and that weâ??ve been discussing. In other words, the only reason Longacre/Millon excluded metal and metal bells is those words donâ??t comport with â??existing archeological evidence.â?

You write semantic shift is â??why the word that would seem to mean â??metalâ? really meant â??bell.â? That goes beyond the evidence. Longacre/Millon actually wrote that is â??impossible to be certain of this.â? Remember, it appears that the only reason they suggested the new meaning in the first place is because the words â??metalâ? and â??metal bellsâ? didnâ??t comport with exisiting archaeological evidence.

As to the balderdash, of course Sorenson knew that others knew that there was evidence of metal in pre-A.D. 900 Mesoamerica. He said so in the very pages of his book weâ??re discussing, and he refers to work he had done citing references to that evidence. So for you to argue that he was misleading strains what credulity

I have left. Helly belly, he even talked about Longacre/Millon, two Mesoamerican linguists who in 1961 apparently were reluctant to go against the orthodoxy (my words not Sorensonâ??s).

If you want to nip at the heels of his use of the word orthodox, have at it. Iâ??ve already been down a similar road with you. Iâ??ll not go down that road again.

Larson misused Sorenson, you have now been made aware of that. I hope to see a change on your website soon.

*Riddle me this beastie, why would Larson excise that 24-word sentence from the quote? Why did he cut the Sorenson quote short? Talk about straining credulity.

** I should mention, that I have read pages 22 and 29 carefully and scanned the rest of the pages of the article. Words or sets were always underlined or in all caps, so if the words metal or metal bells were on the other pages, I should have seen them. However, I'm open to correction.

Hey I have already retired from this thread you cant leave Zak by himself. BTW good find.

[beastie]

As to the balderdash, of course Sorenson knew that others knew that there was evidence of metal in pre-A.D. 900 Mesoamerica. He said so in the very pages of his book we’re discussing, and he refers to work he had done citing references to that evidence. So for you to argue that he was misleading strains what credulity I have left. Helly belly, he even talked about Longacre/Millon, two Mesoamerican linguists who in 1961 apparently were reluctant to go against the orthodoxy (my words not Sorenson’s).

You, like Sorenson, are conflating two issues. Simple metals and metallurgy.

In his book, Sorenson asserts that archaeologists maintained there were no metals prior to 900 AD. He then uses that assertion to justify using the linguistic evidence of "metal" to support his assertion that evidence of metallurgy exists. In doing so, he asserts that "the experts were quite wrong". He presents his evidence (much of which has been addressed by Matheny and others) in order to suggest that archaeologist should no longer ask

why was there no metal in early Mesoamerica? Now it ought to become, why do we recover so little evidence of the metallurgical skill that was surely there?

He then refers to the linguistic evidence for metal and asserts that this is further support for the existence of metallurgical skill that was "surely there".

What Sorenson was misleading about was suggesting that mainstream archaeology did not recognize the existence of simple metals at the point he was writing his book, and then using the "linguistic evidence" for the word "metal" and linking that to proof of the metallurgical process. The archaeological evidences he shared were supposed to prove metallurgy. His (misused) source, Linne, was very clear about the iron mirror being meteorite pyrite, but Sorenson doesn’t mention that at all.

I will update my website, but it will probably not be until the weekend after next.

Let me ask you point blank: do you not have any qualms about Sorenson and Gardner using "linguistic evidence" for metal as some sort of persuasive evidence of the existence of metallurgy?

Here is evidence of how misleading these statements are to believers:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...dnote_sorenson2

Presence of metal prior to A.D. 900

The 'conventional wisdom' that metal was not used prior to A.D. 900 cannot now be sustained. Copper sheathing on an altar in the Valley of Mexico dates to the first century B.C. [1] Furthermore, in 1998, a discovery in Peru pushed the earliest date of hammered metal back to as early as 1400 B.C.:

"Much to the surprise of archaeologists, one of the earliest civilizations in the Americas already knew how to hammer metals by 1000 B.C., centuries earlier than had been thought.

"Based on the dating of carbon atoms attached to the foils, they appear to have been created between 1410 and 1090 B.C., roughly the period when Moses led the Jews from Egypt and the era of such pharaohs as Amenhotep III, Tutankhamen and Ramses. 'It shows once again how little we know about the past and how there are surprises under every rock,' comments Jeffrey Quilter, director of Pre-Columbian Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute in Washington, D.C."[2]

Sorenson also adduces evidence for metals and metalwork through linguistic evidence. Many Mesoamerican languages have words for metals at very early dates; it would be very strange to have a word for something that one did not have or know existed!

Now why does this believer think that “conventional wisdom” is that metal was not used in AD 900? Why does this believer think that the linguistic evidence is some sort of evidence for the BoM because “it would be very strange to have a word for something that one did not have or know existed!”?

Do you think these ideas are formed willy-nilly? These ideas, which are misconceptions, are formed as a direct result of the statements of apologists like Brant Gardner and John Sorenson.

In his 1994 rebuttal to Matheny, Sorenson stated:

The discussion on metallurgy ignores or rejects important information I have presented about occurrences and use of actual metal specimens in Book of Mormon times as well as of linguistic evidence for very ancient knowledge of metals in Mesoamerica. Again, none of what Matheny says is new, and none of her arguments persuades me that I should revise my position regarding earlier-than-usually-thought metallurgy.

http://ispart.byu.edu/publications/review/...um=1&id=142

Once again. Sorenson and Gardner have never, to my knowledge, claimed that there is linguistic evidence for the process of metallurgy. They claim there is linguistic evidence for “metal”, and then act like it’s something amazing. Sorenson, in his rebuttal, still presents himself as correcting the misunderstandings of the rest of the archaeological community by asserting a “very ancient knowledge of metals in Mesoamerica”. Note: not a “very ancient knowledge of metallurgy in Mesoamerica”.

BTW, if anyone doubts that Sigvald Linne and Erland Nordenskiold were respected, mainstream scholars, a simple google search should settle the matter.

[gtaggart]

You, like Sorenson, are conflating two issues. Simple metals and metallurgy.

<snip>

Let me ask you point blank: do you not have any qualms about Sorenson and Gardner using "linguistic evidence" for metal as some sort of persuasive evidence of the existence of metallurgy?

I'll respond to the rest of your post if and when I have time--I really am spending too much time doing this.

First, I am not conflating two issues; if anyone is, you are. I have not raised the issue of metallurgy at all in my posts about Larson. I have simply pointed out that he abused Sorenson in his book and that he abused the Longacre/Millon source, all of which were about metals.

Second, I don't believe evidence of metal is persuasive evidence of metallurgy. I do believe that such evidence should give us pause if we ever think all the finding has been done. Whether or not all archaeologists dismissed evidence of metal as late as 1961, it's obvious that some, maybe many, possibly most did. And now we know differently.

Basically, I'm a ride with the science kind of guy, but one who is skeptical of scientific certitude. You'll be glad to know that I'm reading more in Mesoamerican things, basic stuff, like Richard Diehl's "The Olmecs" and Coe's "The Maya" (?), and an article here and there. What's been interesting about Diehl's book is how often he qualifies his statements with words like, "might," "maybe," "could be," and such. In his Epilogue he even writes of new discoveries that have come to light while he was writing, then says, "Three such discoveries landed in my e-mail in-box in the last twelve months, each requiring me to rewrite sections of the manuscript and examine some of my long-held beliefs." I find such statements refreshing.

[beastie]

You are arguing that Larson deliberately manipulated the Longacre quote to make it appear that Sorenson was incorrect on this point:

That the position of orthodox archaeologists was that metals were not used in Mesoamerica pre-A.D. 900.

The reason I don't think you're making a strong case for that point is that the lines Larson omitted were as following:

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.

Your argument would be stronger if Larson had omitted this part instead:

The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence.

But he didn't omit that part. He clearly stated the source's view that the existence of metal was improbable at that early date.

Larson, in fact, does a good job trying to differentiate between metal and metallurgy, unlike Sorenson, when he states:

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?

I will come back later, after work, to demonstrate why Sorenson (and you, when you follow his lead) conflate simple metal and metallurgy. It has to do with the fact that the evidence he gives for metal is always evidence for metallurgy.

Yes, I'm glad to hear you're reading more about ancient Mesoamerica. I think that's always a good thing.

[Zakuska]

You, like Sorenson, are conflating two issues. Simple metals and metallurgy.

In his book, Sorenson asserts that archaeologists maintained there were no metals prior to 900 AD. He then uses that assertion to justify using the linguistic evidence of "metal" to support his assertion that evidence of metallurgy exists. In doing so, he asserts that "the experts were quite wrong". He presents his evidence (much of which has been addressed by Matheny and others) in order to suggest that archaeologist should no longer ask

Conflating...? Well lets see beastie... How exactly does a chunck of copper become a "metal bell" but by Metalurgy? Since we are talking about words of the end product [ie Metal bell] and not just words for "simple Metal", it seems you are trying to blur the lines.

[beastie]

My reply is taking a bit longer than I anticipated, largely due to the very productive line of investigation I decided to take with this. It may be tomorrow before I'll have it ready.

What metal bell, zak?

[beastie]

I decided to just go ahead and post what I've already written. It's already too long.

Bear with me, I’m going to quote a rather large section from An Ancient American Setting to try and demonstrate how Sorenson –and by his lead Gardner and now gtaggart – conflate simple metals and metallurgy. This is going to be lengthy, so I know few will read it, but I don’t see any way around it.

The Use of Metals

Critics of the Book of Mormon have been fond of pointing out that statements in the scripture regarding use of metals by the Nephites and Jaredites run contrary to authoritative pronouncements on the subject by experts. The position of orthodox archaeologists has long been that nowhere in Mesoamerica were metals used before about AD 900. Until recently Latter-day Saints were not in a position to reconcile this conflict. In 1954 I published two articles that presented evidence for the existence of metal objects from Mesoamerican archaeological sites well before the accepted date of AD 900. Further finds would be needed, I concluded, before the question of dating could be settled.

Nearly twenty years later I updated the information and included much more data. Since then additional facts have come out in support of the idea that metal use was much earlier in America than had been thought. One basic lesson we learn from this experience is that the experts were quite wrong. Metals were indeed in use in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica.

What kind of evidence is there? The most compelling sort of actual specimens found where an early date is positively established. Over a dozen of these significantly predate AD 900. The earliest piece so far probably dates back to around the first century BC. It is a bit of copper sheathing found on top of an altar at Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico. In addition to surely early specimens, other finds, not firmly dated, could be pre-

AD 900: a late date has been inferred for some of them mainly because metal was found and “everybody knows” that metal occurs only in late sites. When all current information is considered, it appears that archaeologists should now be asking a new question. The old query was, why was there no metal in early Mesoamerica? Now it ought to become, why do we recover so little evidence of the metallurgical skill that was surely there?

Traditional Mesoamerica accounts from various groups have reported use of metals that dirt archaeologists have failed to document. Evidence from language also indicates knowledge in the metallurgical arts beyond the supposed AD 900 barrier. Longacre and Millon reconstructed part of the Proto-Mixtecan language of the state of Oaxaca and thereabouts on the basis of words found in its daughter languages. In identifying terms that must have been in use before the descendant tongues split apart, the researchers were puzzled by the fact that a word for “metal” seemed to have existed in the proro-language at about 1000 BC. Of course, metalworking is not supposed to have been going on then.

The same linguistic procedure has been applied to Mayan languages. Proto-Tzeltal-Tzotzil has been applied to Mayan languages. Proto-Tzeltal-Tzotzil dating to perhaps AD 500 had a term for metal. But a related term occurs in Huastecan, considered to be the languages that first split off the basic Maya stem, supposedly around 2200 BC. Even if we arbitrarily reduced this figure to around 1500 BC, this linguistic evidence indicates that metal was known to Mayan people at a startlingly early date. Yet Kaufman and Campbell, in an influential study of the Mixe-Zoquean language group, added further support. They concluded that Proto-Tzeltal-Tzotzil was likely the language of the Olmecs known to the archaeologists. That early tongue too had its word for metal by around 1500 BC. So work in comparative linguistics shows that metals must have been known, and presumably used, at least as early as 1500 BC. That date extends back to the time of the Jaredites, for which so far we have not a single specimen of metal. Does it not seem likely that specimens are going to be found someday?

Did orthodox archaeologists insist that there was no metal used anywhere in Mesoamerica prior to AD 900?

Gullberg, J.E. (1959), "Technical Notes on Concave Mirrors" in Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955, Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 170, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, USA, 280-283 and pl.62.

Nordeskiold, E. (1926), “Mirroirs convexes et concaves en Am

[beastie]

BTW, I hate to break it to you, Zak, but even Sorenson admits that the Ether passage can only describe smelting.

from page 282

Only a single time are we unmistakably told of smelting. According to the Jaredite account, King Shule "did molten out of a hill,and made swords"

[Zakuska]

So now you are changing your tune Beastie, it looks like, an atempt to smear Sorenson yet again.

We see here, contrary to what you have been contending, that there was metal used in Meso America in BOM times, and in the way Mosiah described it... as an Adornment on an Altar.

Over a dozen of these significantly predate AD 900. The earliest piece so far probably dates back to around the first century BC. It is a bit of copper sheathing found on top of an altar at Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico.

Your only contention appears now to be "Smelting" of metal. We know the Pervians (who live in the land southward) where smelting metal for centuries. (IIRC Jaredites where southward of Nephites) We've also already noted the smelted Metal Action Figure that was found in Mesoamerica as early as 300bc-900bc.

What exactly is Metalurgy Beastie?

Metallurgy is a domain of materials science that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements, their intermetallic compounds, and their mixtures, which are called alloys. It is also the technology of metals: the way in which science is applied to their practical use. Metallurgy is commonly used in the craft of metalworking.

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

Are you now telling me that Copper/silver, Copper/Gold, Alloys where not being produced in Americas during BOM times?

The evidence shows otherwise Beastie.

[Zakuska]

BTW, I hate to break it to you, Zak, but even Sorenson admits that the Ether passage can only describe smelting.

from page 282

Smelted "what" from a rock and made swords?

Did He smelt Iron, or did he smelt a copper Gold Alloy known as Bronze? Sometimes refered to as "steel" in the Bible.

PS. Beastie... it's not Sorenson who is conflating metal USE with Metalurgy (Smelting of Metal) it's the Archeologists themselves...

Note the sources...

1. 108 ^ a b Archaeologist 'Strikes Gold' With Finds Of Ancient Nasca Iron Ore Mine In Peru

2. 115 ^ "The first Andean evidence for metallurgy dates to around 1500 B.C. " site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...05/ai_n21438921 it is in the middle of the page.

3. 116 ^ Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica Series: Cambridge World Archaeology Christopher Pool University of Kentucky

4. 117 ^ D. Hosler and G. Stresser Pean, "The Huastec Region: A Second Locus for the Production of Bronze Alloys in Ancient Mesoamerica," Science, 257 (1992), pp. 1215-1220.

5. 118 ^ D. Hosler and Andrew MacFarlane, "Copper Sources, Metal Production and Metals Trade in Late Post-Classic Mesoamerica," Science, 273, (1996), pp. 1819-1824.

6. 123 ^ D. Hosler, "Six Metal Production Sites in the Tierra Caliente of Guerrero" (unpublished research).

7. 125 ^ The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico by Dorothy Hosler

Mormons might just have the Answer to the second Locus.

[beastie]

So now you are changing your tune Beastie, it looks like, an atempt to smear Sorenson yet again.

I have no idea what you think Iâ??m changing my tune about.

If reporting on an erroneous, and yet widely repeated supposed source supporting metallurgy constitutes â??smearingâ?, so be it.

We see here, contrary to what you have been contending, that there was metal used in Meso America in BOM times, and in the way Mosiah described it... as an Adornment on an Altar.

Deanne Matheny already addressed this assertion, as I shared on my website (which I am certain you have not read):

â??What may be the oldest piece of metal from Mesoamerica (from the site of Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico) noted by Sorenson may date as early as about the first century B.C.E. (1985, 278). However, I know of no confirmation of a date that early. In fact it has been suggested by Emil Haury, one of the project archaeologists although not the one who excavated the piece, that the metal was from an Aztec reuse of a Preclassic mound (1975, 199). Additionally there is no evidence that the artifact singled out by Sorenson was produced in Mesoamerica. Even if this piece should prove to have been produced in the proper time (Late Preclassic period0 and place, we would still be left with 2,900 years of Nephite and Jaredite metallurgy unaccounted for in the archaeological record.â?

This has been the fate of every one of Sorensonâ??s metallurgy references that has been carefully analyzed.

Your only contention appears now to be "Smelting" of metal. We know the Pervians (who live in the land southward) where smelting metal for centuries. (IIRC Jaredites where southward of Nephites) We've also already noted the smelted Metal Action Figure that was found in Mesoamerica as early as 300bc-900bc.

So are you suggesting that the Jaredites lived in Peru? I wish you good luck in proving that Peru possessed the prerequisite social complexity during that time period for such an assertion.

No, Zak, we havenâ??t â??noted the smelted Metal Action Figure that was found in Mesoamerica as early as 300AD â?? 900AD (correcting what I assume is your typo). You have a partial reference for a figurine that is dated in the classic period. You, without the slightest justification, decided that means that itâ??s reasonable to date the figurine from 300 AD onward. But just to put this silly bit to rest, I easily found another, more complete, reference to the figurine:

http://www.arqueocostarica.net/articles/pd..._Gold_Shift.pdf

Several other Costa Rican-style prestige goods come from the Late Classic at Copan. As observed by Hoopes (2005a:28), Morley (1946) reported on a pair of gold-copper figurine legs from Copan, seen in Fig. 7b, found in the cache under Stela H. Morley described the find as â??a pair of legs belonging to a small, hollow human figurine made of a gold-copper alloy,â? adding that â??even when complete [the figurine] could not have stood more than four inches highâ?(1946:431-432, Fig. 55c). He suggested that the figurine was â??made in Costa Rica or Panama and had reached Copan probably by trade,â? and noted of its context that â??indications are that the two pieces recovered had found their way into the foundation vault of Stela H some time later than the dedicatory date of that monumentâ? (1946:432). la H was dedicated on A.D. 731, Long Count 9.15.0.0.0. Therefore, the gold-copper object was deposited in that year or sometime later

Smelted "what" from a rock and made swords?

Did He smelt Iron, or did he smelt a copper Gold Alloy known as Bronze? Sometimes refered to as "steel" in the Bible.

PS. Beastie... it's not Sorenson who is conflating metal USE with Metalurgy (Smelting of Metal) it's the Archeologists themselves...

Note the sources...

What difference does it make what he was smelting? The point is that he was clearly smelting, which you seemed to deny earlier.

I have absolutely no idea why you think the sources you cited show that the archaeologists are conflating metal USE with metallurgy. Iâ??d ask you to clarify, but at this point in my interaction with you, I think that would be largely useless.

[Zakuska]

I have no idea what you think I'm changing my tune about.

What difference does it make what he was smelting? The point is that he was clearly smelting, which you seemed to deny earlier.

I have absolutely no idea why you think the sources you cited show that the archaeologists are conflating metal USE with metallurgy. I'd ask you to clarify, but at this point in my interaction with you, I think that would be largely useless.

CFR. I've consistantly been ponting out that the Peruvians where smelting since 1500 bc.

[beastie]

CFR. I've consistantly been ponting out that the Peruvians where smelting since 1500 bc.

CFR on what? I didn't say you denied the metallurgy in Peru. I said you denied that the book of Ether clearly described smelting. That's why I quoted Sorenson.

I'm just guessing what your CFR means, because it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion - frankly, many of your posts have made little sense on this thread.

[Zakuska]

CFR on what? I didn't say you denied the metallurgy in Peru. I said you denied that the book of Ether clearly described smelting. That's why I quoted Sorenson.

I'm just guessing what your CFR means, because it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion - frankly, many of your posts have made little sense on this thread.

Which I CFRd. Please show me anywhere that I have denied the Jaredites Clearly smelted metal.

[beastie]

Which I CFRd. Please show me anywhere that I have denied the Jaredites Clearly smelted metal.

On page 7:

beastie:

What do you imagine Nephi was doing when he molted metal out of hill?

Zak:

Probably the same thing the Borther of Jared was doing when he "motled" sixteen white stones out of a rock.

Ether 3: 1

1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying.

Did tBoJ forge glass too?

"Motlen" is a prety ambiguous term in the BOM which encompassed the processes of several industries. What we can observe from the text is that he melted something and fashioned it into something else. It doesn't necesarily preclude melting something and hammering it into shape. Nor does it necessitate us interpreting it as forging.

I replied:

So tell me what the BoJ and Nephi were doing.

molâ?¢ten (mltn)

v. Archaic

A past participle of melt.

adj.

1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.

2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.

3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" Richard Wright.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molten

So yes, they were doing something similar - they were applying intense, controlled heat to the rock in order to turn the metal into liquid.

I am at a loss to figure out how you think this helps your case.

That precipitated the entire silly â??taffyâ? debate, like this:

Because Taffy Metal doesn't require quite as much temperature control as say white hot liquid metal poured into a popsicle mold.

You already have admited that they did work with metals to make things such as mirrors. Thats not that big of a leap to jump to say black smitthing to create some of the copper axe heads they all had.

Zak, seriously â??if you were not denying that the Jaredites smelted metal, then I do not understand the purpose of this particular exchange that I copied above.

[beastie]

Iâ??m going to assume that you concede that the hollow-leg figurine does not provide evidence of early classic smelting, as you kept asserting. I assume this because you totally ignored the evidence I provided, and your pattern seems to be to completely ignore it when I directly refute one of your points.

So now letâ??s look at your assertion that archaeologists themselves are conflating metal and metallurgy. Here are the sources you highlighted:

115 ^ "The first Andean evidence for metallurgy dates to around 1500 B.C. " site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...05/ai_n21438921 it is in the middle of the page.

This is not conflating metal and metallurgy. The article really was about Peruvian metallurgy.

117 ^ D. Hosler and G. Stresser Pean, "The Huastec Region: A Second Locus for the Production of Bronze Alloys in Ancient Mesoamerica," Science, 257 (1992), pp. 1215-1220.

Again, Hostler really is talking about metallurgy.

I am at a complete loss as to why you imagine these articles are conflating metal and metallurgy.

[gtaggart]

I decided to just go ahead and post what I've already written. It's already too long.

Bear with me, Iâ??m going to quote a rather large section from An Ancient American Setting to try and demonstrate how Sorenson â??and by his lead Gardner and now gtaggart â?? conflate simple metals and metallurgy. This is going to be lengthy, so I know few will read it, but I donâ??t see any way around it.

<huge snip>

Beastie, did Sorenson conflate metals and metallurgy in his section on metals in his book "An American Setting"? Maybe, maybe not. You can speculate at will. But doing so only moves the goal posts as far as my argument goes. I never, ever, ever mentioned metallurgy in my discussion of Larson's misrepresentation of Sorenson. Why? Well, for at least one reason: Neither did he. My post was all about excised sentences and the word puzzlement. About what? The words metal and metal bells. And who was puzzled? According to Sorenson, the two linguists, Longacre and Millon. And what was his evidence for their puzzlement? That they dismissed the linguistic evidence in front of them solely because it conflicted with the "existing archaeological evidence" that there was no metal pre-A.D. 900. And in place of that evidence, they accepted "the remote possibility" of a semantic shift. And when did these mainstream, orthodox, oft-quoted Mesoamerican linguists write their article? 1961. I repeat 1961.

In other words, in 1961--in spite of the apparent fact that a few, maybe more than a few, archeologists accepted pre-A.D. 900 evidence of METAL--there were at least two who didn't and who therefore dismissed the linguistic evidence of metal right there in front of them. Given the fact they they dismissed it, I suspect that there were at lot of them in 1961 who dismissed the idea as well.

That's my argument. It has nothing to do with metallurgy. If you want to continue to argue the scope of Sorenson's use of the term "orthodox archeologist," go for it. But don't include me in the conflation group unless I decide to join.

To repeat: Larson misrepresented Sorenson.

[beastie]

gtaggart,

Perhaps you missed my previous response to this issue. See post 180.

In sum, you would have a valid argument if Larson had omitted this line:

The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence.

but that is not the sentence he omitted, is it?

In fact, you've misrepresented Larson's purpose in discussing Longacre. He did not assert that Sorenson misrepresented the fact that these two archaeologists asserted metal did not exist prior to 900AD. If that had been his purpose, he would have omitted the sentence above. Instead, he asserted that the scholars dismissed the possible meaning "metal" based on the lack of a "group of related vocabulary terms describing a specific cultural practice" reconstructed for the protolanguage (see Larson, ,page 197). I provided his full citation earlier on this thread.

[beastie]

Here's the Larson citation again, for ease of reference:

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?

Note the bolded portion. Larson is arguing that Sorenson misrepresented the authors in that he insinuated that the only reason they rejected "metal" was due to the lack of evidence of the existence of metal (according to these two authors). In fact, according to Larson, they rejected the term "metal" because of the lack of a "group of related vocabulary terms".

As I've stated several times, the only way your argument would make sense would be if they omitted "The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence." Doesn't that sentence clearly show the authors didn't think that metal existed at that date? How is he hiding that?

If you could send me a copy of the scanned Longacre text, that would help me evaluate Larson's assertion. I cannot locate it online. PM me and I will give you my email address.

[James Banta]

Although I consider myself fairly well versed in Book of Mormon "evidences," I learned something new from watching Daniel C. Peterson's BYU-Education Week presentation, in which he remarked that the Book of Mormon's description of using iron as a decoratation does not fit into an early 19th century American use of the metal, but does find support among the ancients.

Because Prof. Peterson had to cover so much ground in his presentation, he did not dwell on this singular issue, and I was wondering if anybody out there can point me to some references for his proposition about iron being used anciently for decorative effect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Is it you or Daniel C. Peterson that doesn't know what he is talking about?

The 19th century brought the development of the ornamental cast iron industry. The history of cast iron ornamental furniture begins with the raw element itself: iron. Always found as an ore, iron must be processed in to wrought iron, steel, or cast iron, differing with the amount of carbon they contain, with cast iron having the most and being the least malleable and most brittle. Although iron furniture had existed for centuries, the new American cast iron industry was viewed as superiority of technology over nature and iron as the new important material of the 19th century. By 1840 there were over 800 cast iron foundries in this country and the number doubled by 1850. At first cast iron was used for architectural and industrial uses, then for decorative fencing, house and garden ornaments. Iron manufacturers promoted the use of ornamental cast iron for conservatories, parks and cemetaries, extolling its beauty and indestructibility. (Aileen Minor American Antiques 208 South Liberty Street Centreville, Maryland)

IHS jim

[gtaggart]

Here's the Larson citation again, for ease of reference:

Note the bolded portion. Larson is arguing that Sorenson misrepresented the authors in that he insinuated that the only reason they rejected "metal" was due to the lack of evidence of the existence of metal (according to these two authors). In fact, according to Larson, they rejected the term "metal" because of the lack of a "group of related vocabulary terms".

As I've stated several times, the only way your argument would make sense would be if they omitted "The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of existing archaeological evidence." Doesn't that sentence clearly show the authors didn't think that metal existed at that date? How is he hiding that?

If you could send me a copy of the scanned Longacre text, that would help me evaluate Larson's assertion. I cannot locate it online. PM me and I will give you my email address.

I'll see what I can do about the scanned article. I have pages 22 and 29 in hand. On page 22, you'll find most of the general discussion of what Larson describes as how to obtain "greater certaintly," though their extended discussion of the criteria they used to obtain that "certainty" goes on for pages.

In any case, I see what you're saying, but I simply don't agree with your (or Larson's) interpretation. The only reason Longacre/Millon gave for rejecting metal/metal balls is that those words didn't comport with the existing archaeological evidence--even in their extended discussion, they refer back to that "fact." And in spite of the sentence that you point out that Larson left in, the fact remains that he cut Sorenson's quote short--the one that ties the Longacre/Millon quote back into his thesis--and he removed the sentence from the Longacre/Millon quote that shows that they were opting for a "remote possibility" over the evidence right in front of them because to do otherwise would go against the grain of the orthodoxy (my word).

Seriously, how do you account for the sentences that Larson omitted from the Sorenson and Longacre/Millon quotes?

I really don't want to debate this further. I see what you're saying. I don't agree, and I doubt more back and forth will change that. I appreciate the new sources you provided a couple of posts back. I'll give them a read. And I will see if I can get you the relevant pages of Longacre/Millon.

By the way, I'm starting a thread on pottery. Care to join?

[James Banta]

You said:

The Book of Mormon's description of using iron as a decoratation does not fit into an early 19th century American use of the metal, but does find support among the ancients.

All I wanted to do was point out that decorative iron work was being done in the 19th century.. Your statement of support for LDS teachers is understandable but I just don't see it as a defensible point.. Oh well believe it supports the BofM if you wish.. faith promoting for you ok, outside evidence that would be exceptable by the non-LDS world..... NOPE!!! IHS jim

Oh Pottery, I'll see.. It has to be a flagrant point easy to counter to anyone who will look at it without the rosy glasses of Mormonism on for me to point a finger at and say NOT SO!!!