Metal Swords?

[inquiringmind]

Is it true that no pre-Columbian metal swords have ever been discovered in North, Central, or South America?

[Darren10]

It is perhaps true that no metal pre-Columbian swords have been discovered in the Americas. But if your interest is in Book of Mormon archeology, then realize that the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that metal swords were used. In fact the word "metal" only appears twice in the entire Book of Mormon. The swords used by the ancient Americans were probably along the lines of these bad puppies:

See Macuahuitl

Edited May 25, 2012 by Darren10

[blackstrap]

In most of the warm tropical parts of the Americas,if a piece of metal(not gold etc.) is placed on or in the ground,within a few years it will be very hard to recover intact. In a thousand years,good luck.Stone however seems to survive well.Swords don't seem to have been the weapon of choice in North America. Take a look at the instances in the BoM where metal swords are spoken of and the context.

[Kenngo1969]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=28&num=2&id=564

While you're always welcome to post questions here, I found the above with a 15-second Google search using the terms "Mormon" and "metal swords." My testimony of the Book of Mormon does not hinge on the presence or alleged absence of Lehite DNA, metal swords (I believe the Sword of Laban was among the physical objects examined by the Prophet Joseph Smith, but I don't have a reference ... perhaps I should do another 15-second Google search! ) horses, or any other object mentioned in the Book of Mormon. My testimony hinges on the fact that the truth of the Book of Mormon has been witnessed to my soul by the Holy Spirit. Whatever anyone else might be able to say regarding these issues, they will never be able to convince me that Divine Intervention has not been involved with my personal experiences with the Book of Mormon. Among these experiences has been finding Alma 26:8-12 after basically opening it at random in a response to a prompting to read the Book of Mormon, which convinced me that I would be able to serve a successful mission despite some physical limitations which had put that prospect in genuine doubt in my mind.

Whatever anyone says about swords or horses or cement or anything else will never convince you of the book's truth. For that, you need to have at least one personal experience with the book which is akin to the one I describe above. Without that, you will always be of "Inquiring Mind" and "Unconvinced Heart." I wish you well.

[DBMormon]

Inquiring Mind.... there are plenty of areas where one could fall either way.... The sword things is a non issues for the reasons mentioned

1.) it is a fact that most metals deteriorate too quickly in the mesoamerica Climate and

2.) it is a strawman.... there are 140 references to swords in the Book of Mormon.... Outside of Laban's it doesn't mention metal swords.

Also Alma 44:18 among others makes a distinction when the swords were sharp which seems to be an anomaly. The fact they take time to tell us when they are sharp. This tells me that the material in the swords was likely something dull or difficult to sharpen or keep sharp.

So yes it is true "no" 100% metal swords have been found in the Americas dating to this time

[CASteinman]

A book called "Prehistoric Implements: A Reference Book" by By Warren King Moorehead contains a reference and a picture of a copper "knife or sword" on page 324.

[blackstrap]

If I am not mistaken( if only) ,hardened copper surgical instruments were found in the Peruvian area as well as skulls with evidence of trepanation.

[CASteinman]

It also appears that some Pre-Columbian metal swords were found by the Limhi Expedition as recorded in Mosiah chapter 8:

...having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel. ... And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust

[Kenngo1969]

If I am not mistaken( if only) ,hardened copper surgical instruments were found in the Peruvian area as well as skulls with evidence of trepanation.

http://www.trepanationguide.com/

Sounds way kewel! I think I'll try it!

[CASteinman]

http://www.trepanationguide.com/

Sounds way kewel! I think I'll try it!

It is hard to believe, but it is true, I have seen it. A woman made a video where she did a trephination on her own head. She did it not because she was sick (well, at least not physically) but as an act of "performance art".

I am sure if you search the web, you can find the video or at least an article about it.

[Darren10]

It also appears that some Pre-Columbian metal swords were found by the Limhi Expedition as recorded in Mosiah chapter 8:

Good point.

[Freedom]

It also comes down to the meaning of steel and metal. Steel as we know it did not exist in the time of Joseph Smith, at least not widely.

[Cobalt-70]

It is perhaps true that no metal pre-Columbian swords have been discovered in the Americas. But if your interest is in Book of Mormon archeology, then realize that the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that metal swords were used. In fact the word "metal" only appears twice in the entire Book of Mormon. The swords used by the ancient Americans were probably along the lines of these bad puppies:

See Macuahuitl

That's a club, not a sword. Joseph Smith and/or Mormon certainly knew the difference (see Mosiah 9:16, Alma 17:37). Plus, you can't decapitate somebody with one of those, as per Ether 15:30, and you can't die by "running upon" this club, as per Alma 57:33, and you can't chop people's arms off by its "edge" as per Alma 17:37. It also doesn't have a "hilt" as per Alma 44:12. It also doesn't have a "point" as per Alma 44:13.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Thinking]

the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that metal swords were used. In fact the word "metal" only appears twice in the entire Book of Mormon.

The word steel appears five times, and the word sword appears 140 times.

Let's do a little deductive reasoning.

1 Nephi 4:9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

2 Nephi 5:14-15 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people. And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

[Cobalt-70]

In most of the warm tropical parts of the Americas,if a piece of metal(not gold etc.) is placed on or in the ground,within a few years it will be very hard to recover intact. In a thousand years,good luck.Stone however seems to survive well.Swords don't seem to have been the weapon of choice in North America. Take a look at the instances in the BoM where metal swords are spoken of and the context.

Iron swords would gradually turn to rust, but nobody has ever dug up the remains of an ancient Mesoamerican sword composed of rust, either.

[Kevin Christensen]

For metals in the Book of Mormon, try this:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/398

I found this passage particularly enlightening:

My point was that if we disregard Arnold Friberg's illustrations and just look at the text, we discover that iron and steel are not described after 150 B.C. at the latest. It is interesting and perhaps supremely important that iron and steel production are only mentioned in the areas that correspond to the Guatemalan Highlands, given a Mesoamerican setting. My mineralogical map showed that this is the only location where the necessary ores are known and that most of Book of Mormon history took place in areas that did not contain iron. We may be unnecessarily superimposing our cultural connotations when we read about swords, cimeters, spears, head plates, and so on. The whole point was that according to the Spanish and archaeology, 'swords' do not have to be metal to be deadly effective weapons and there is no question about that. Whether Nephite swords were metal for all of their history or not, I do not know. When George writes 'metal weapons,' he is adding something to the text that is not really there. Again, this is not solely my idea; it is merely a suggestion and not a provable fact, but one that other scholars and authors have made before me. Notice that at the time of the quote in Alma (about 90 B.C.), the only metals mentioned are gold and silver, not utilitarian metals for tools and weapons. If we look closely, the Book of Mormon never specifically says that Nephite weapons were made of metal. In fact, other than the plates given to Mormon and delivered to Moroni, no metal of any kind is mentioned during the last few centuries of their account. Of course, this is all theoretical and open to further interpretation and adjustment. Remnants of Jaredite metal weapons are described in the record, but I did say that I was only dealing with Nephite items in this presentation.

For a closer look at swords in the Book of Mormon, see Hamblin and Merril here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=734

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Darren10]

That's a club, not a sword. Joseph Smith and/or Mormon certainly knew the difference (see Mosiah 9:16, Alma 17:37). Plus, you can't decapitate somebody with one of those, as per Ether 15:30, and you can't die by "running upon" this club, as per Alma 57:33, and you can't chop people's arms off by its "edge" as per Alma 17:37. It also doesn't have a "hilt" as per Alma 44:12. It also doesn't have a "point" as per Alma 44:13.

Sword-like: Here's from the first paragraph in my Wiki link: "The maquahuitl (a name that was derived from the Nahuatl language) is a weapon shaped like a wooden sword. Its sides are embedded with prismatic blades made from obsidian, a volcanic glass stone frequently used for tool making by the Aztec and other pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures. It was similar to a large wooden club with cuts in the side to hold the sharpened obsidian." Take off the obsidian and you'll have a standard club. With the obsidian and you may wield the macuahuitl similar to that of the sword though with perhaps less flexibility. The sword may penetrate the target by thrusting it foward whereas the macuahuitl would need to be swung from the sides in order to "cut". In fact, pay attention tothe last sentence from the "Origins and distribution" section of my Wiki link (bold mine): "The maquahuitl predates the Aztecs. Tools made from obsidian fragments were used by some of the earliest Mesoamericans. Obsidian used in ceramic vessels has been found at Aztec sites. Obsidian cutting knives, sickles, scrapers, drills, razors, and arrow points have also been found.^[10]" Obsidian can naturally be very sharp.

Decapitation: The macuahitl could very easily decapitate a person. Here's from the "Effectiveness" of my Wiki link:

The maquahuitl was sharp enough to decapitate a man.^[10] According to an account by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Hernán Cortés’s conquistadors, it could even decapitate a horse:

Pedro de Moron was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead.

Alma 57:33:

33 And it came to pass because of their rebellion we did cause that our swords should come upon them. And it came to pass that they did in a body run upon our swords, in the which, the greater number of them were slain; and the remainder of them broke through and fled from us.

This does not seem to exlude some swinging.

Cut off people's arms: (See "decapitation". Especially when cut off "with [its] edge") - "he smote off their arms with his sword; for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword" (Alma 17:33).

Hilt: Sure it has a hilt:

hilt

   /hɪlt/ Show Spelled[hilt] Show IPA

noun

1.

the handle of a sword or dagger.

2.

the handle of any weapon or tool.

verb (used with object)

3.

to furnish with a hilt.

hilt

Point: Here's what Alma 44:13 says: "13 And it came to pass that the soldier who stood by, who smote off the scalp of Zerahemnah, took up the scalp from off the ground by the hair, and laid it upon the point of his sword, and stretched it forth unto them, saying unto them with a loud voice:" It most certainly connotes the soldier's weapon have *only* one point but I do not see where it is exclusively interprested as such. Macuahuitls could ber fashioned with "points".

Granted though "the point" is a strong indication of a tratitional image of a sword you and I would think of.

[Darren10]

Thinking #14;

Let's do a little deductive reasoning.

I thought of all of the story of Laban and the sword of Laban before making my opost. In fact, I've thought about it long before making the post and when I first learned of the macuahuitl weapon. The Book of Mormon does not say that Nephi made swords out os steel like Laban's sword. Only "after the manner" of Laban's sword did Nephi make swords for his people for their protection. "After the manner" is a very broad definition. Even if he did use steel or some sort of metal (which would not surprise me), the lack of mentioning of "steel" in the Book of Mormon is indicative that "steel" may have once been used but lost over time. In fact, as far as the Nephites go, the Book of Jarom is the last mentioning of "steel" and that was very early on in their history. If this is true, then given the large areas of humid lands in Mesoamerica, I can understand why this would be the case.

[phaedrus ut]

The description of Laban's sword is pretty specific. Making other swords in the manner of Laban's sword is can be done because Nephi says the have metallurgy to make both brass and steel. The sword of Laban was passed down from person to person until it was hidden away with the plates so understanding of what a sword is would be known to the BOM writers.

Mosiah 1:16 And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also, the sword of Laban, and the ball or director

The Book of Mormon text even distinguishes between other weapons that are similar but with subtle differences. There are swords, cimetars, clubs and axes that are described using technical details such as "hilts" and "blades".

Mosiah 9:16 - And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.

Mosiah 10:8 - And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bow and with arrows, and with swords, and with cimeters, and with stones, and with slings;

Alma 43:18 -...his people were armed with swords, and with cimeters, and all manner of weapons of war.

Alma 2:12 -... they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons war, of every kind

Alma 60:2 - ...and arm them with swords, and with cimeters, and all manner of weapons of war of every kind

Having the sword of Laban himself Mosiah could distinguish the difference between a club, a sword, and a cimetar. He also new the description for the parts of a sword as shown when he described what they found in some Jaredite ruins.

Mosiah 8:10­-11 - ..they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound. And ... they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust

Mosiah owns a sword, distinguishes between different types of swords, knows the difference between a club and a sword, he can identify parts of the sword, and he describes details of the blades deterioration. To pretend he is describing a macuahuitl seems very difficult.

Phaedrus

[JAHS]

Interesting news article about 2000 year old Peruvian iron ore mine:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080211-nasca-mine.html

[Kenngo1969]

Yeesh! I'd rather take my chances against a traditional sword than that sucker, any day!

[volgadon]

Mosiah owns a sword, distinguishes between different types of swords, knows the difference between a club and a sword, he can identify parts of the sword, and he describes details of the blades deterioration. To pretend he is describing a macuahuitl seems very difficult.

Macuahuitls aren't clubs. They are wooden swords with obsidian blades. I'm not however claiming that the refernces to cankered blades are macuahuitls.

Edited May 25, 2012 by volgadon

[Darren10]

The description of Laban's sword is pretty specific. Making other swords in the manner of Laban's sword is can be done because Nephi says the have metallurgy to make both brass and steel. The sword of Laban was passed down from person to person until it was hidden away with the plates so understanding of what a sword is would be known to the BOM writers.

I completely agree that swords in the americas *could have been* made from steel/metal andthat Nephi most definitely possessed knowledge and capability, and even a passion, for metallurgy. However, my main point is that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly say that swords were made from metal or steel. Concluding that they were is only based on circumstantial evidence. And frankly either conclusion (that they were made of metal or not) is fine with me. But not recovering "metal swords" from New World archeology presents no problem to the story of the Book of Mormon itself in my estimation.

[Darren10]

Macuahuitls aren't clubs. They are wooden swords with obsidian blades. I'm not however claiming that the refernces to cankered blades are macuahuitls.

Good point. Nor am I. I'm only considering it as a possibility.

[Darren10]

Yeesh! I'd rather take my chances against a traditional sword than that sucker, any day!

LOL!!!

Edited May 25, 2012 by Darren10