North American Metallurgy

[shrff]

Okay I was bounced around from one expert (Dr. Larson of Ohio State University to another expert Dr. Carr of Arizona State and finally to Dr. Ruby of the Ohio Historical Society). From my contact list Dr. Ruby and Dr. Carr are experts on Spruce Hill. I asked about population levels and that information is forthcoming also about metallurgy and the stone wall. here is snip of what they have wrote in the past. When I recieve a email on the rest I will also let you know.

Edited to add; So yes, the wall dates back and was built by the Hopewell (for ceremonial purposes) and although the wall is Hopewell, the furnace remains such as charred glass etc are not but colonial american times.

I can walk across the hall and ask Chris Carr about this if you'd like. My office is about 3 doors down from his.

[shrff]

Thanks for sharing your finds and perspective.

This really sums it up for me. The conspiracy to cover up evidence to show that prehistoric Native Americans were intelligently using "advanced" technology is actually true. The results for the lead smelting this summer will change all of that hopefully.

Really sad, but not surprised by it and I know we need to be cautious about any proposed evidence, but we also need to recognize that in our world, there are darker forces in operation.

Can I ask what led you to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to cover up Native American use of "advanced" technologies such as smelting metal? I'm honestly trying to understand what is leading folks to believe this idea.

I am a professional archaeologist, and I am personally acquainted with hundreds of professional archaeologists. There is no conspiracy. If there was one, I would publish an article about it and get famous. In fact, if an archaeologist could produce solid evidence of something like metal smelting, they would publish that paper in a hot second because that article would be worthy of Science, Nature, or some other tier 1 journal. The person who could produce that article would be famous in the archaeological community, and would also be immortalized as a game changer in the discipline.

[Anijen]

I can walk across the hall and ask Chris Carr about this if you'd like. My office is about 3 doors down from his.

Thanks Shrff, He has been kind enough to respond by email and I am waiting for Dr. Ruby's response (he is vacationing). I agree with your post I have sensed no such attitude of conspiracy. What I have sensed is a desire to write on available evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, it seems there is none for smelting at least yet, hence the view of no pre-Columbiam metallurgy.

[bookofmormontruth]

Can I ask what led you to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to cover up Native American use of "advanced" technologies such as smelting metal? I'm honestly trying to understand what is leading folks to believe this idea.

I am a professional archaeologist, and I am personally acquainted with hundreds of professional archaeologists. There is no conspiracy. If there was one, I would publish an article about it and get famous. In fact, if an archaeologist could produce solid evidence of something like metal smelting, they would publish that paper in a hot second because that article would be worthy of Science, Nature, or some other tier 1 journal. The person who could produce that article would be famous in the archaeological community, and would also be immortalized as a game changer in the discipline.

It is based on history, no conspiracy.

From forcing Native Americans to be "civilized" through US citizenship to "Manifest destiny" which established the Indian Removal Act that lead to the "trail of tears".

In regards to archaeology, the so called "conspiracy" has been flamed by Rod Meldrum in his DVD that interviews historians and archaeologists that have the view that Native Americans have always been looked as "savages" and not "advanced" people. So any evidence has been "suppressed".

In addition, you don't go against the "norm" in any profession without risks involved. For example: a doctor finds a "natural cure" for a disease. He tries to publicize his/her data/research, but ends up being ostracized by his/her profession because the pharmaceutical companies cannot patent the product and if the cheap natural cure is accepted - they lose money. He/she is not looked as a hero, but as an antagonizer. Hard not to see this in any profession, unless you are already firmly established.

Conditions are ripe for "game changers". I see it in my own profession so we will see what changes are made this summer in regards to the possible lead smelting find.

[Anijen]

Conditions are ripe for "game changers". I see it in my own profession so we will see what changes are made this summer in regards to the possible lead smelting find.

I agree, but we cant change the game simply because we desire to do so. Lets be patient and see what is found and studied, perhaps this lead smelting study will be it, perhaps not. Lets wait and see. If it isn't, it will not be because of a conspiracy but because the evidence does not collaborate with the hypothesis or is not strong enough.

[bookofmormontruth]

I agree, but we cant change the game simply because we desire to do so. Lets be patient and see what is found and studied, perhaps this lead smelting study will be it, perhaps not. Lets wait and see. If it isn't, it will not be because of a conspiracy but because the evidence does not collaborate with the hypothesis or is not strong enough.

I agree 100%.

Man! You guys are downers!

Where is the excitement? This is exciting stuff to explore. Even if the lead smelting ends up to be a big dud, still fascinating.

But yes, I will be patient.

[shrff]

It is based on history, no conspiracy.

From forcing Native Americans to be "civilized" through US citizenship to "Manifest destiny" which established the Indian Removal Act that lead to the "trail of tears".

In regards to archaeology, the so called "conspiracy" has been flamed by Rod Meldrum in his DVD that interviews historians and archaeologists that have the view that Native Americans have always been looked as "savages" and not "advanced" people. So any evidence has been "suppressed".

In addition, you don't go against the "norm" in any profession without risks involved. For example: a doctor finds a "natural cure" for a disease. He tries to publicize his/her data/research, but ends up being ostracized by his/her profession because the pharmaceutical companies cannot patent the product and if the cheap natural cure is accepted - they lose money. He/she is not looked as a hero, but as an antagonizer. Hard not to see this in any profession, unless you are already firmly established.

Conditions are ripe for "game changers". I see it in my own profession so we will see what changes are made this summer in regards to the possible lead smelting find.

I've had almost an identical conversation with Rod Meldrum about this issue. I was unable to persuade him to get beyond his assumption that scholars would rather cover up information than publish ground-breaking discoveries and become famous. In Rod's case, I believe that he is too busy accusing others of refusing to look beyond their paradigm to look beyond his own paradigm. Perhaps I'll have more luck here.

Anthropology, including archaeology, has historically been closely tied to Colonialism, including the construction of unequal relationships between the colonizers and indigenous peoples. US-Native American relations have long been tainted by colonial assumptions, including the idea that Native American groups are inferior to white people of European descent. Canadian-First Nations relations have been less-troubled by Colonial assumptions. Over the last several decades, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social scientists have become very aware of the colonialist critique. We acknowledge that colonial assumptions are wrong, and that human beings around the world are pretty much as intelligent and capable as any other, regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship, etc. This idea was recently expressed in the popular science literature by Jared Diamond as the "Cargo Problem." Despite what the angry individuals in Meldrum's film say, most social scientists not only reject these assumptions, but take great pains to go the other way, and show how innovative and intelligent the people we study truly are/were. The rejection of Colonialism in the social sciences is typically referred to as Post-Colonialism.

As hard as this is to believe for many in this world, there are too many researchers influenced by Post-Colonial thinking to perpetuate some mass conspiracy regarding Native North American metal smelting. The reason that the overwhelming majority of researchers reject the idea that Native North Americans smelted and refined metals is that good evidence has yet to come to light.

As in any discipline, anthropology/archaeology includes many researchers that would rather die than retreat on some position that they have taken. In our specific discipline, the trenches tend to get dug in around theoretical perspectives. Native North American metal smelting is not a theoretical perspective. I have spent the last decade working in archaeology. Despite the hours of coursework and decade of experience, Rod Meldrum has attempted to explain to me on more than one occasion that I just don't understand how academia works, and that anthropologists really are racists trying to cover up just how technologically advanced prehistoric Native North Americans were. This is a false idea assumed by folks who do not have first hand experience in archaeology.

What would possibly motivate me to lie about or misrepresent this issue?

[bookofmormontruth]

I've had almost an identical conversation with Rod Meldrum about this issue. I was unable to persuade him to get beyond his assumption that scholars would rather cover up information than publish ground-breaking discoveries and become famous. In Rod's case, I believe that he is too busy accusing others of refusing to look beyond their paradigm to look beyond his own paradigm. Perhaps I'll have more luck here.

Anthropology, including archaeology, has historically been closely tied to Colonialism, including the construction of unequal relationships between the colonizers and indigenous peoples. US-Native American relations have long been tainted by colonial assumptions, including the idea that Native American groups are inferior to white people of European descent. Canadian-First Nations relations have been less-troubled by Colonial assumptions. Over the last several decades, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social scientists have become very aware of the colonialist critique. We acknowledge that colonial assumptions are wrong, and that human beings around the world are pretty much as intelligent and capable as any other, regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship, etc. This idea was recently expressed in the popular science literature by Jared Diamond as the "Cargo Problem." Despite what the angry individuals in Meldrum's film say, most social scientists not only reject these assumptions, but take great pains to go the other way, and show how innovative and intelligent the people we study truly are/were. The rejection of Colonialism in the social sciences is typically referred to as Post-Colonialism.

As hard as this is to believe for many in this world, there are too many researchers influenced by Post-Colonial thinking to perpetuate some mass conspiracy regarding Native North American metal smelting. The reason that the overwhelming majority of researchers reject the idea that Native North Americans smelted and refined metals is that good evidence has yet to come to light.

As in any discipline, anthropology/archaeology includes many researchers that would rather die than retreat on some position that they have taken. In our specific discipline, the trenches tend to get dug in around theoretical perspectives. Native North American metal smelting is not a theoretical perspective. I have spent the last decade working in archaeology. Despite the hours of coursework and decade of experience, Rod Meldrum has attempted to explain to me on more than one occasion that I just don't understand how academia works, and that anthropologists really are racists trying to cover up just how technologically advanced prehistoric Native North Americans were. This is a false idea assumed by folks who do not have first hand experience in archaeology.

What would possibly motivate me to lie about or misrepresent this issue?

For the record, I am not questioning your motivation, at all. I also don't subscribe to Meldrum, just giving an example of where the "flaming" probably came from.

I subscribe to evidence for the Book of Mormon wherever it may be found.