Iron weapons found in Cost Rica

[John Larsen]

Some say potato some say potatoe.

Some say steel, some say steeling.

Can you find any evidence outside of the BoM to suggest that the word "steel" was applied to un-annealed iron?

None of which means you can associate ancient versions with the indestructible stainless knives and spoons in my modern utensil drawer.

What are you talking about? Who has even suggested anything remotely like this?

[Sevenbak]

Can you find any evidence outside of the BoM to suggest that the word "steel" was applied to un-annealed iron?

What are you talking about? Who has even suggested anything remotely like this?

Can you find evidence that it's not? I should put my own rolling eyes icon up. It's obvious that the detractors use steel in today's context. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would add that according to R. Maddin, ("How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237 (October 1977): 131) there were two forms of ancient "steeling" iron:

1. quenching

2. carburizing through taking heated iron and hammering it and folding it so carbon molecules from the charcoals were beaten into the iron.

"By quenching, a process in which hot [note: not melted] iron is plunged into cold water, the iron could be made hard."

Anciently, iron was never melted or cast in the Near East. The earliest known examples of casting liquefied iron are from China in the fourth century B.C. "Due to its high melting point (1540 degrees C), iron was never worked as a molten metal during the [Near Eastern] Iron Age? Iron had to be hammered, the blacksmith first having to consolidate a hot, spongy bloom of iron mixed with slag. By hammering out the slag he was able to produce a usable lump of iron. In order to use that iron, however, it was necessary to reheat the lump of iron and forge the hot metal to the desired shape."

Note that the term "smelt" is never used in the Book of Mormon. This, again, is a modern conflation of ancient and modern concepts and practices.

BTW, this is a book I'm interested in. Has anyone read it?

The Rediscovery Of Lost America - The Story of The Pre-Columbian Iron Age In America

[John Larsen]

Can you find evidence that it's not? I should put my own rolling eyes icon up. It's obvious that the detractors use steel in today's context. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Can you find any evidence that when someone says musket they don't mean machine gun?

The question you ask is patently ridiculous. Not only is there no archeological evidence that they had steel, it would be a technological anacronism akin to insisting the American partisans in the Revolutionary war had Tommy Guns. Surely it is feasible, is it not?

[Sevenbak]

Can you find any evidence that when someone says musket they don't mean machine gun?

The question you ask is patently ridiculous. Not only is there no archeological evidence that they had steel, it would be a technological anacronism akin to insisting the American partisans in the Revolutionary war had Tommy Guns. Surely it is feasible, is it not?

Where's the "slapping my forehead" emoticon when I need it. Perhaps this will have to do instead:

Steeled iron was a form of metalurgy in ancient times. Not machine-gunned muskets.

I know you take great pleasure in holding onto this "gotcha" in your ammo belt, but it's time to move on.

[shrff]

Sigh right back at ya.

I find it much more credible to take the text at it's word and know that finds like these support it. Not the other way around.

CFR that the text of the Book of Mormon indicates there should be iron smelting furnaces in present-day Ohio.

The problem is with your definition of the word "finds." The "finds" to which you are referring have all been made by amateurs without training in appropriate archaeological methods. These "finds" are all reported on websites or in self-published books, often by known associates of Wayne May, who has made a North American setting for the BOM his express agenda for many years.

The evidence to which I am referring has been gathered by people with years or professional archaeological training and experience. Their work has been published in peer-reviewed contexts, and has withstood the test of professional criticism.

Who should we believe? The professional archaeometallurgical community, or a bunch of hobbyists horsing around on the weekends swapping stories with Wayne May? Why wouldn't the professional community engage these "finds" that you keep referring us to? Are they afraid that speaking up would support the Book of Mormon? The BOM is not even on the radar of these people. Do they suppress the evidence because it would tarnish their professional reputation or refute previous publications? Credible evidence for iron working or copper smelting in North America would make these people famous. Such a study would be published in something like Science or Nature, the most prominent academic journals in the world.

One of the problems with abundance arguments Sevenbak, such as the one on the website you love to direct people to, is that they are philosophically self-defeating. William Conner proudly announces that there are more than 130 furnaces that have been discovered in Ohio alone. 130 furnaces, and not one of them has been independently found or validated by a person qualified to make an assessment. And yet an avocationalist has managed to track them all down himself. If these features are so common, why hasn't just one of them been found legitimate by a professional?

The answer is simple, these features do not meet the criteria for legitimacy. If they did, with supposedly so many of them kicking around, at least one of them would have appeared in the professional literature. Some old guy making an unsubstantiated claim is not a credible "find". You are misleading people when you claim that this internet gossip is evidence Sevenbak. You're seeing what you want to see, not what the data indicate. I assure you that each time you post unsubstantiated claims about North American metallurgy, I will be there to refute them. As a Registered Professional Archaeologist, it is my ethical responsibility to do whatever I can to inform the public about what the data actually are. Thanks for the opportunity to fulfill my duties.

[Sevenbak]

CFR that the text of the Book of Mormon indicates there should be iron smelting furnaces in present-day Ohio.

The problem is with your definition of the word "finds." The "finds" to which you are referring have all been made by amateurs without training in appropriate archaeological methods. These "finds" are all reported on websites or in self-published books, often by known associates of Wayne May, who has made a North American setting for the BOM his express agenda for many years.

The evidence to which I am referring has been gathered by people with years or professional archaeological training and experience. Their work has been published in peer-reviewed contexts, and has withstood the test of professional criticism.

Who should we believe? The professional archaeometallurgical community, or a bunch of hobbyists horsing around on the weekends swapping stories with Wayne May? Why wouldn't the professional community engage these "finds" that you keep referring us to? Are they afraid that speaking up would support the Book of Mormon? The BOM is not even on the radar of these people. Do they suppress the evidence because it would tarnish their professional reputation or refute previous publications? Credible evidence for iron working or copper smelting in North America would make these people famous. Such a study would be published in something like Science or Nature, the most prominent academic journals in the world.

One of the problems with abundance arguments Sevenbak, such as the one on the website you love to direct people to, is that they are philosophically self-defeating. William Conner proudly announces that there are more than 130 furnaces that have been discovered in Ohio alone. 130 furnaces, and not one of them has been independently found or validated by a person qualified to make an assessment. And yet an avocationalist has managed to track them all down himself. If these features are so common, why hasn't just one of them been found legitimate by a professional?

The answer is simple, these features do not meet the criteria for legitimacy. If they did, with supposedly so many of them kicking around, at least one of them would have appeared in the professional literature. Some old guy making an unsubstantiated claim is not a credible "find". You are misleading people when you claim that this internet gossip is evidence Sevenbak. You're seeing what you want to see, not what the data indicate. I assure you that each time you post unsubstantiated claims about North American metallurgy, I will be there to refute them. As a Registered Professional Archaeologist, it is my ethical responsibility to do whatever I can to inform the public about what the data actually are. Thanks for the opportunity to fulfill my duties.

CFR where I said the BOM says there should be smelting furnaces in Ohio?

Do the "experts" even give these finds a second look, to substantiate the claims, or is the mindset of "science" that there existed no iron age in Ancient America prevent such an approach from happening?

I view this attack from you no different that the Main Steam Media discounting all stories coming out of Fox News, because it not "acceptable".

[Sevenbak]

I'll take it one step further too. Why isn't science looking more closely at these costa Rica knives? Are they afraid it may upset the cart? Has there been dating done on them?

What about the iron artifacts that Mallory and others discovered? Why don't they analyze them, instead of shrugging them off off as "amateurs"?

I suggest they start with these:

Arlington H. Mallery displays the 62-pound bar of cast iron he discovered in the Arledge Mound when excavating remains of a pit iron furnace near Chillicothe, Ohio in 1948. The amateur archaeologist was surprised to find the cast iron bar stuck in an air duct of one of two furnace pits found in the mound, since he only expected to find wrought iron associated with a bloomery smelter. Photo by William Conner.

Clyde Keeler holds a 42.5 pound cast iron bar he uncovered August 7, 1971 at a Ross County, Ohio site which he named "Haskins Furnace Mound No. 2." The bar was cast in a mold in which an inscription had been formed. The symbols of the inscription were partly rusted away, requiring interpretation by the observer as to what some of them might signify. Keeler thought the letters spelled "CONALY" while fellow investigator Bennett E. Kelley thought the letters might read "OGNIY." This photo and the other on this page showing Dr. Keeler were furnished to the author by Kelley. The close-up photo of the inscribed bar was taken by Dr. Duane Aston, professor of chemistry, University of California at Sacramento, CA in June, 1991 during his visit the Fayette County Historical Society Museum, Washington, C.H., Ohio. The bar was originally placed on display in 1971 by Kelley, who was curator of the museum.

The Haskins No. 2 Cast Iron Bar, 1991

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

[Scottie]

I'll take it one step further too. Why isn't science looking more closely at these costa Rica knives?

LOL

Yes, the entire study of Archeology is in a massive conspiricy to keep the BoM in a questionable state by refusing to look at steel because then it would be one more thing that the BoM got right.

Are you serious??

[Olavarria]

I came across this site that has some samples of iron tools found in Mesoamerica. Apparently they are at the Peabody Museum at Yale. Has anyone seen this collection, or know anything more about them?

Pre-Columbian Iron Blade

Peabody Museum 83-72-32770

Pre-Columbian Iron Blade

Peabody Museum 83-72-20/32771

Pre-Columbian Iron needles

Peabody Museum 03-24-20/C3628

From the site: According to their ledger entries, they were found in 1883 along with other ancient artifacts in a stone-covered burial mound near the shores of the Tempique River in Pelona, Costa Rica.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/164

To what century are they dated? I know the Tlaxcalans had metal weapons but that was post-BoM tomes and it was technology acquired through contact with S. America.

[Sevenbak]

LOL

Yes, the entire study of Archeology is in a massive conspiricy to keep the BoM in a questionable state by refusing to look at steel because then it would be one more thing that the BoM got right.

Are you serious??

It's not about the BOM, it's about preconceived and accepted science that says if we acknowledge something, we have to throw out all our known views. Instead of following truth wherever it may lead, it's about following the crowd.

[Sevenbak]

To what century are they dated? I know the Tlaxcalans had metal weapons but that was post-BoM tomes and it was technology acquired through contact with S. America.

Unknown, just that they were found under a cut stone mound. I was hoping someone here was familiar with them.

[Larrin]

Steel has a very general definition. If iron tools were found (especially if they showed good hardness) and were reliably dated before Columbian times, then I would say it's good evidence for steel. We're still waiting though.

[John Larsen]

Where's the "slapping my forehead" emoticon when I need it. Perhaps this will have to do instead:

Steeled iron was a form of metalurgy in ancient times. Not machine-gunned muskets.

I know you take great pleasure in holding onto this "gotcha" in your ammo belt, but it's time to move on.

You can stop slapping your forehead and I will explain it to you.

The machine gun represented a technological advancement over the musket. It is clear from looking back at the evidence of the time that repeating rifles did not exist during that time. If they did, there would be many supporting technologies that we can also look for. It is not that the idea of a repeating or machined rifle did not occur to anyone--in fact I am sure the idea crossed the mind of many a poor soldier on the battlefield. However, the technological support did not exist. Indeed, if you wanted to find proof that a society had a machine gun, it would be easier to find the supporting industry and technological advancement that it requires to create the precision machined parts necessary for the repeating mechanism.

The main thing you need to turn iron into steel is really, really hot heat. I'm sure it occurred to those using crude iron age tools and weapons that something better might be created, but without the ability to smelt the iron it was a no go.

So if you want to find out if the pre-Columbian Americans had steel weapons, look for the furnaces and other tell-tale signs of steel production. Do we find pig iron? No. Do we find blast furnaces? No. Do we find the iron tools that blacksmiths would use to create steel weapons? No. Do we find cut marks on bones indicating steel tools? No. Do we find anything at all related to the production of steel? No.

Just like the musket proceeded the machine gun, the ability to smelt iron was proceeded by the ability to smelt bronze. Interestingly enough, there is no evidence of bronze production during the BoM times either. So not only is it anachronistic, just like the Tommy gun at Bunker Hill, we don't find steel in the Americas.

[juliann]

Sigh right back at ya.

I find it much more credible to take the text at it's word and know that finds like these support it. Not the other way around.

On the contrary, we lose credibility when these kinds of sources are used.

[handys003]

Tons? Baloney. Name 2.

Well "tons" is probably a poor choice of words on my part. I did not mean to insult. However there are a few and I did previous include a statement from the Smithsonian.

Also:

The International World History Project, founded and run by current and former university professors from around the globe and under the direction of Doctor Robert A. Guisepi, historian and author, is a collection of history related essays, maps, historical documents, educational videos, speeches and music. Some material has been written by our staff while others are either in the public domain or re-printed by permission. This site is updated at least monthly but more generally once a week.

The International World History Project was founded January 2000, covers over 330 individual, historical topics and contains more than 2000 pages. History World International receives approximately 500,000 visits per month from all over the world and is listed as a major resource for universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools and grade schools. The site has been quoted by USA Today, CBC and PBS who have referred their visitors to The International World History Project to learn about historical events and people.

"One thing they had in common was the use of stone tools. All made a variety of hammers, scrapers, knives, arrowheads, and spear points from stone. They were handicapped by the lack of sharp metal tools".

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/images/winter_08.pdf

To collect sugar maple sap, Native Americans would

simply cut a V-shaped groove into the trunks of maple trees and

let the sap drip down into a container. Since the Native Americans

had no metal tools, they used only wooden troughs or bowls

and pottery made out of clay for their processing

if they are claiming no metal tools. What would be the point of iron furnaces?

[ed2276]

I came across this site that has some samples of iron tools found in Mesoamerica. Apparently they are at the Peabody Museum at Yale. Has anyone seen this collection, or know anything more about them?

Pre-Columbian Iron Blade

Peabody Museum 83-72-32770

Pre-Columbian Iron Blade

Peabody Museum 83-72-20/32771

Pre-Columbian Iron needles

Peabody Museum 03-24-20/C3628

From the site: According to their ledger entries, they were found in 1883 along with other ancient artifacts in a stone-covered burial mound near the shores of the Tempique River in Pelona, Costa Rica.

http://www.bmaf.org/node/164

Iron needles!!? Whoa!!! I can't seem to remember which book, chapter, and verse in the Book of Mormon mentioned the Nephites or Lamanites sewing or knitting. Where is that again?

Edit: In answer to my own question, it is here:

Mosiah 18: 21

21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

[John Larsen]

Well "tons" is probably a poor choice of words on my part. I did not mean to insult. However there are a few and I did previous include a statement from the Smithsonian.

Also:

The International World History Project, founded and run by current and former university professors from around the globe and under the direction of Doctor Robert A. Guisepi, historian and author, is a collection of history related essays, maps, historical documents, educational videos, speeches and music. Some material has been written by our staff while others are either in the public domain or re-printed by permission. This site is updated at least monthly but more generally once a week.

The International World History Project was founded January 2000, covers over 330 individual, historical topics and contains more than 2000 pages. History World International receives approximately 500,000 visits per month from all over the world and is listed as a major resource for universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools and grade schools. The site has been quoted by USA Today, CBC and PBS who have referred their visitors to The International World History Project to learn about historical events and people.

"One thing they had in common was the use of stone tools. All made a variety of hammers, scrapers, knives, arrowheads, and spear points from stone. They were handicapped by the lack of sharp metal tools".

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/parks/images/winter_08.pdf

To collect sugar maple sap, Native Americans would

simply cut a V-shaped groove into the trunks of maple trees and

let the sap drip down into a container. Since the Native Americans

had no metal tools, they used only wooden troughs or bowls

and pottery made out of clay for their processing

if they are claiming no metal tools. What would be the point of iron furnaces?

The natives had furnaces to fire pottery. What proof do you have that these ran hot enough to smelt iron?

[Larrin]

So if you want to find out if the pre-Columbian Americans had steel weapons, look for the furnaces and other tell-tale signs of steel production. Do we find pig iron? No. Do we find blast furnaces? No. Do we find the iron tools that blacksmiths would use to create steel weapons? No. Do we find cut marks on bones indicating steel tools? No. Do we find anything at all related to the production of steel? No.

Just like the musket proceeded the machine gun, the ability to smelt iron was proceeded by the ability to smelt bronze. Interestingly enough, there is no evidence of bronze production during the BoM times either. So not only is it anachronistic, just like the Tommy gun at Bunker Hill, we don't find steel in the Americas.

Modern steel production techniques are quite different than ancient ones. I'd definitely be impressed if someone found pig iron.

[handys003]

Larsen

Personally I don't other than articles I have read with detailing the ancient copper mines of the Great Lakes region. It could be as you said and it could be as Mallory says. However the indications of ancient mining pose the possibility. The bare fact that Central and South America having the capability demonstrates the technology was there in the Americas before the first Europeans and more than likely the means to preform traveled through out the North as well.I will agree with shrff that you need to have the good science to sustain but to carry the attitude it doesn't exist is prejudicial thinking.

I'll give this example again. University of Hawaii wanted to set up as part of the Hawaiian cirrculum Ancient Polynesian Navigation. There are only 6 experts in the entire world. None have a college degree. They sent their professors to learn. When Chad was approached to teach, he told them he could come over to the university and set up the same cirriculm that he teaches on the Big Island. He was told flat out he wasn't qualified to teach the subject in classes as he didn't have the proper credentials. He could teach them and they will teach from that point. This is a fine point in prejudicial thinking. Needless to say as kind as he was he taught them for 12 weekends, but with stern warning not to implement as the art takes more than teaching from the books. Later on students who took the course tried on their own and got lost. The course has been suspended and the state only allows the classes taught by these five men who don't have letters besides their name. The attitude needs to stop and the open ended thinking needs to apply or else true science will not proceed.

[Chris Smith]

The "polished mirrors" are not smelted iron, but simply iron ores (hematite/magnetite/iron pyrite) that have been hand-carved and hand-polished. There are also beads and other small items shaped from these ores. They are not, however, the "molten" metals described in 1 Nephi 17. By the way, there's a pretty good piece on Book of Mormon metallurgy here.

[Stargazer]

I always thought it was steel that was the problem, not iron.

IIRC, they have found polished mirrors made of iron that dates to pre-columbian times as well.

The biggest problem with the use of the word "steel" is that we are generally guilty of presentism. The English word "steel" nowadays connotes something that is made out of iron that is either the product of a blast furnace incorporating carbon and other alloying materials to produce stainless, or extraordinarily hard metal. But the origin of the word had nothing to do with metallurgy. The word as used in the Book of Mormon makes people think that Nephi had a bow made out of stainless steel. Not necessary, in fact, almost not possible. Bows are not made out of metal, or at least they weren't in 600 BC.

The word steel used to mean "strengthened". Just like when you "steeled" yourself before leaping into a fray.

Nephi's steel bow was made of conventional materials like wood, but probably also incorporated items such as sinew, possibly some metal, in order to help store more energy in the bending of the bow. How on earth would a human being be able to physically break a "steel" bow, anyway? Nephi as Charles Atlas? That's the way Friberg painted him, but there was a great deal of artistic license being taken. But Nephi could break a bow made out of wood with sinew backing.

[Stargazer]

Steel has a very general definition. If iron tools were found (especially if they showed good hardness) and were reliably dated before Columbian times, then I would say it's good evidence for steel. We're still waiting though.

Let me go at this one more time.

The word steel, as used today, means hardened iron. Typically out of a blast furnance, but surely wrought iron might be "steeled" by beating it with certain impurities like carbon.

The word steel as originally used in English did NOT mean hardened iron. It meant hardened, or strengthened ANYTHING. Are we going to attack the BoM because Nephi had a steel bow, when first of all, there was no such thing as hardened iron in 600 BC, and second of all, how on earth would he be able to draw a hardened iron bow if he somehow had one?

Well, dangit, "steel" isn't hardened iron until rather more recently than BoM times. The word shows up in the Old Testament, and please tell me that the King James Version translators meant carbon-steel when they wrote the following:

35 He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 22:35)

That's two smacks to the head. First of all, if someone at the time could have a "bow of steel" in King Saul's time, then dangit I think Nephi could have one, too! But like I said, the word "steel" does NOT mean hardened iron, it meant in this context a bow whose draw had been strengthened by resilient materials.

There are other uses of the word steel in the KJV.

24 He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.

(Old Testament | Job 20:24)

11 The LORD said, Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction.

12 Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 15:11 - 12)

[Scottie]

So are you saying that in JS day, there was no seperate distinction between iron and steel? That a farmer might go into a blacksmith and ask for steel horseshoes, which really just meant adding reenforcement?

Also, the problem with your biblical account is that it was translated by men, so it is understandable that these mistakes could happen. The BoM was supposedly translated directly from God. You mean God doesn't know the difference between iron and steel?

[Stargazer]

So are you saying that in JS day, there was no seperate distinction between iron and steel? That a farmer might go into a blacksmith and ask for steel horseshoes, which really just meant adding reenforcement?

Also, the problem with your biblical account is that it was translated by men, so it is understandable that these mistakes could happen. The BoM was supposedly translated directly from God. You mean God doesn't know the difference between iron and steel?

I might be saying that in JS day there was no separate distinction between iron and steel, but I might not. A blacksmith took iron, heated it up to cheery cherry red, and pounded it until it had taken the form he desired. Was it steel? Carbon-strengthened iron? Just plain iron? <shrug> But I am also saying that God gave JS the translation, and used the word in the same ambiguous fashion that Joseph's scriptures used it. Why is this so hard to follow?

When God told Moses about the creation, he didn't get into useless details like planets coalescing from the disk of material whirling about the proto-sun, and he certainly didn't discourse with him about the importance of having a molten iron core that produced a magnetic field, or any number of other trivia which would have done Moses exactly zero good. He said, I created it. It took me 6 days. Or, according to Genesis ch. 2, one day. Take your pick.

[All-Seeing Eye]

Nephi's steel bow was made of conventional materials like wood, but probably also incorporated items such as sinew, possibly some metal, in order to help store more energy in the bending of the bow. How on earth would a human being be able to physically break a "steel" bow, anyway? Nephi as Charles Atlas? That's the way Friberg painted him, but there was a great deal of artistic license being taken. But Nephi could break a bow made out of wood with sinew backing.

WHOA!

You're the first and only person I've heard suggest that Nephi's steel bow wasn't actually made of steel.

I bet if I went into any Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine class and asked the instructor of what material Nephi's bow was made, the instructor would say "steel," not "wood."

I bet if I asked any of the General Authorities the same question, they would give me the same answer.

How can you be so sure of yourself? What if Nephi's steel bow was very thin, making it both flexible and breakable?