Metal Swords?

[mfbukowski]

Starting with the time you clubbed her and drug her by the hair back to your lair?

I wish! It wasn't exactly like that! More like me begging and pleading!

It's just that she has been trying to civilize me for 32 years now and she has had only limited success, but she has stuck with it, and for the life of me I can't figure out why!

[mfbukowski]

As far as the dating here, just fyi

Still, early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century). The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070619033436/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM

It is speculated of course that the journey Nephi took was down the Arabian peninsula and who knows what kind of wandering traders he might have encountered.

The bottom line is that we all accept this on our testimonies anyway- but it is reasonable to conclude that it all could have happened precisely as written.

So "after the manner" might have actually meant a steel sword- and later the technology was lost. Or of course it could have been as discussed earlier- after all again, we are dealing with an expanded translation by the power of God. The words really don't matter much at all.

Edited May 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

Looks like Thinking is the new director of Broadway's Darren "after the manner of" Broadway's The Book of Mormon. The following passage from the [actual] Book of Mormon should clear up Thinking's, well "thinking" (redundancy intentional). relevant information placed in bold or red. Both my own doing:

(2 Nephi 5:16)

In this passage the phrases "after the manner of" and "like unto" do not mean "exactly like", do they? In fact there's a specific qualifier Nephi uses to say "we did not construct the temple *exactly like* the Temple of Solomon" yet he still uses the terminologies "after the manner of" and "like unto".

You're welcome. Now, alongside the writers of Southpark, please write a play that's actually useful for man's edification.

So in this passage there is a qualifier save it were not built of so many precious things; Why? for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. Which means that we can infer that if those precious things were available, they would have been used. According to 2 Nephi 5:15, the ore to make steel was in great abundance.

[mfbukowski]

So in this passage there is a qualifier save it were not built of so many precious things; Why? for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. Which means that we can infer that if those precious things were available, they would have been used. According to 2 Nephi 5:15, the ore to make steel was in great abundance.

Huh?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

So in this passage there is a qualifier save it were not built of so many precious things; Why? for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. Which means that we can infer that if those precious things were available, they would have been used. According to 2 Nephi 5:15, the ore to make steel was in great abundance.

But, as mentioned previously, apparently not in the later lands. And we stop eharing about common metals after 160 BC (and it was minimal before then). So... yup. Works for me.

Darren, next time we get together, you can perform that play for me. It'll be great.:-)

[Anijen]

They had better have had a "hilt" (handle). It might be a tad uncomfortable holding them by the blades!

I should have put a smiley. I meant that to be a pun on cobalt's post.

[Darren10]

So in this passage there is a qualifier save it were not built of so many precious things; Why? for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. Which means that we can infer that if those precious things were available, they would have been used. According to 2 Nephi 5:15, the ore to make steel was in great abundance.

Look at the semantics, sir. Nephi says they built the temple "after the manner of" Solomon. Yet, clearly, it did not mean "exactly like" or even "just like" the Temple of Solomon. Therefore, your Broadway tryouts were shot down in flames.

[Darren10]

Darren, next time we get together, you can perform that play for me. It'll be great.:-)

Whoop me up another one of your delicious hamburgers and the performance will be all yours. Mrs. Darren and Mrs. tandy will both enjoy the show, I'm sure.

[CASteinman]

Wow. Gruesome.

[Stargazer]

As a weirdo who has actually made arrowheads and spear points out of obsidian, I can tell you they are sharper than steel- they are harder- more brittle, yes, but they will slice to the bone like nothing else. I have scars on my fingers to prove it.

The reason "flint and steel" makes sparks is that the steel is abraded into fine particles by the flint and the molten metal flies through the air into tinder and starts a fire, or lights the gunpowder in a musket, etc.

But actually obsidian knives are much better for cutting and skinning animals than steel ones- they just require a lot of skill to sharpen!

Just for the fun of it, here's a YouTube playlist of mine featuring a guy knapping a Clovis point:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9C939444A2F8849&feature=mh_lolz

[mfbukowski]

I should have put a smiley. I meant that to be a pun on cobalt's post.

No I got it- I was just underlining the absurdity of the idea, as you were, that such a thing would have no handle. That was the point

[mfbukowski]

Just for the fun of it, here's a YouTube playlist of mine featuring a guy knapping a Clovis point:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=mh_lolz

That guy's a lot better than I am! And notice the hunk of rock he starts out with and what he ends up with! It can take a lot of time, and then one false strike and it's all over! It's all in the feel of the angles and knowing how the glass (in the case of obsidian) will break.

A good way to practice or get started is actually with broken glass bottles and a copper or antler rod. The good new is that unfortunately in camping areas there are often broken glass bottles- one of those and a stick hardened in a fire, and a little work and you have a serviceable spear or arrow head. Bind it with some rawhide or sinew or your shoelaces, and you're in business- another stick and a little work with your glass blade and you have an atlatl.

[bcuzbcuz]

As a weirdo who has actually made arrowheads and spear points out of obsidian, I can tell you they are sharper than steel- they are harder- more brittle, yes, but they will slice to the bone like nothing else. I have scars on my fingers to prove it.

The reason "flint and steel" makes sparks is that the steel is abraded into fine particles by the flint and the molten metal flies through the air into tinder and starts a fire, or lights the gunpowder in a musket, etc.

But actually obsidian knives are much better for cutting and skinning animals than steel ones- they just require a lot of skill to sharpen!

I, also, applaud your 'caveman' proclivities. Very few actually ever test blade chipping, knapping or use of such tools for cutting. I've used an Ulu for working with skins and curing and tanning hides, although as my videos show, it was mostly my daughter who did the actual dirty work. (and I can tell you that curing a hide with brain matter makes it soft and pliable but Puuuh! what a stench)

Steel, or at least hammered, wrought iron, if used or worked with in pre-Columbian Americas would have left traces, in my opinion. I have seen finds of iron from pre-Viking times in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland (Suomi). I've seen iron finds from the northern woods of Germany dating to Roman times, including boot (hob) nails, buckles, hilts and weapon heads. Iron and steel finds from Roman digs in Barcelona, including swords, cutting tools, nails (even wooden such), bucket grips and handles and horseshoes. And iron from pre-Cleopatra Egypt including horseshoes and knives. All of these objects were rusted in some form or another, some were dug up from the ground, others recovered from bogs, but were all still identifiable in form and purpose. In Scandinavia and Germany some finds, other than those I have described, were nothing more than rust stained pieces of ground but still identifiable as non-native iron deposits. Things that rust leave traces.

Edited May 26, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[CASteinman]

That guy's a lot better than I am! And notice the hunk of rock he starts out with and what he ends up with! It can take a lot of time, and then one false strike and it's all over! It's all in the feel of the angles and knowing how the glass (in the case of obsidian) will break.

A good way to practice or get started is actually with broken glass bottles and a copper or antler rod. The good new is that unfortunately in camping areas there are often broken glass bottles- one of those and a stick hardened in a fire, and a little work and you have a serviceable spear or arrow head. Bind it with some rawhide or sinew or your shoelaces, and you're in business- another stick and a little work with your glass blade and you have an atlatl.

I'm sorta a pansy. When I go camping I bring stuff with me. Luxuries. A knife for example. An ax. Food. clothing. A gun. I guess I am just lazy

PS... I also bring matches. Total slacker.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[cinepro]

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:

It looks like no one has clarified this yet, so let me explain why some people think the Book of Mormon is describing metal swords.

This is what Laban's sword looked like:

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.

When they got to the new world, Lehi's family found a lot of metal ore:

1 Nephi 18

[25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Later, after Nephi and his people separate from the Lamanites, they find a place that has lots of metal, and Nephi made many swords "after the manner" of the sword of Laban.

2 Nephi 5

[14] 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.

[15] 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.

I suppose might make sense to some people that the Nephites would find themselves with a great abundance of ores, and the ability to make things from metal (including steel), and a steel sword, but then make swords out of stone and obsidian, but then say they had made swords that were in some way related to the sword of Laban, but for other people that might be a stretch.

The Book of Ether also describes a metal industry among the Jaredites:

Ether 10

[23] And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.

[CASteinman]

I suppose might make sense to some people that the Nephites would find themselves with a great abundance of ores, and the ability to make things from metal (including steel), and a steel sword, but then make swords out of stone and obsidian, but then say they had made swords that were in some way related to the sword of Laban, but for other people that might be a stretch.

It might... it might not.

I happen to believe that they had steel swords but that they were rare and would have used other metals more frequently, especially copper. I also think that as smelting and metalsmithing technology declined, fashioning swords out of wood and obsidian would make sense and still be "after the manner" of the Sword of Laban -- which by then was also probably not around anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

The above guys used piped in oxygen- if they hadn't been lazy they could have used bellows.

http://www.tidewaterforge.com/

Yes, and you may recall that Nephi made bellows (I Nephi 17:11), which were likely foot-bellows since they produce a higher volume of air.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Of course, there's John Haywood's "The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee" (1823) which reports the finding of iron swords and hilts in mounds. The Tanners cite this book for the argument that Joseph Smith ripped off the idea of stone boxes and iron swords from Haywood. Haywood was a Tenn. Supreme Court justice who was an amateur anthropologist at a time when there really weren't professionals.

"There were also found pieces of iron from two to four feet long, straight and uncurved, the back of the blade flat, and one-half or three-quarters of an inch wide near the handle, regularly bevelled on both sides to the edge, and tapering from the handle to the point, calculated both for thrusting and striking transversely. The iron was considerably oxidated, and when exposed to the air dissolved an fell into small particles of rust, leaving only the handle, which was thick, and central parts adhering together. There were four or five of these swords, if we may so call them. (306).

He references this find as coming from Belmont County, Ohio, from a small mound 15 or 16 feet high.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

Steel, or at least hammered, wrought iron, if used or worked with in pre-Columbian Americas would have left traces, in my opinion.

Correct, and they have been.

We have tons of worked iron artifacts available in Olmec sites such as San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Tres Zapotes, and even in Chiapas. There were plenty of iron-ore outcroppings available, particularly in nearby Oaxaca (Flannery 1976:40,58-60,317-325), where San Jose Mogoté seems to have been the primary center for the processing of such ores into elite exchange objects such as small mirrors and drilled beads (Flannery 1976:40,59-60,109,288,317-325,357,363, Flannery & Schoenwetter 1970:148-149, Blanton, et al. 1993:60-61,166, Flannery & Marcus 1983:55).

Michael Coe mentions his own excavation of what he terms "the world's first known compass" (Coe, Snow, and Benson 1986:100), and probably used for site layout and building orientation. Robert Fuson long ago suggested as much for the orientation of Maya sites and buildings, based on Coe's discovery of that magnetite "pointer" at the Early Formative Olmec site of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (Fuson 1969:508-510, Coe in Sharer & Grove 1989:79; Lowe 1989:44 [fig 4.6 item n],53-54; Coe & Diehl 1980:244-245 figs 251, 255). Coe told Fuson that this pointer was

a flattened, oblong piece that is perfectly squared on all faces, and with a longitudinal groove extending along one surface. The object was made with such great care that it appears to be machined (Fuson 1969:508).

Coe succesfully tested the pointer on a cork mat in a plastic bowl of water, and also suggested that the Olmec may have suspended their magnetite mirrors on string for the same purpose. Fuson notes that the pointer could as easily have been floated on liquid mercury – available and extensively used in ancient Mesoamerica (Fuson 1969:508-510; cf. Baity 1973:443; Carlson 1981:117-147),

If you need fuller citations, let me know.

[Darren10]

For the record, I am one who thinks that the Nepihte civilization made swords of metal but that eventually became lost. That this all occurred early on in their history. But one thing I do caution is to say definitiively that they made metal swords. We really do not know that for sure according to existing records available. So, while I think they did at one time make metal swords, I do not proclaim it as an absolute conclusion. If there are those who think they never made metal swords, then fine with me. Either interpretation does not alter or change the Book of Mormon doctrines. But I do want to keep the doctrines straight and clear.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

Things that rust leave traces.

They do. But if they were few in number and the technique was lost, and after all, we have hardly excavated the entire Yucatan peninsula.

So it is still reasonable to suppose that the translation is literally true.

But remember this all is supposing that "steel" is an exact literal translation for the exact word in the "original" and this entire thread has already suggested several other possibilities and reasons describing why it is probably not.

And yet the bottom line is that you have a document which :

1-Purports to only be verifiable through spiritual means

2-Is probably not a literal translation

3-Was provided by an angel on gold plates

4-No longer is available to check out since the angel took away the plates.

Come on now- after that, you are arguing if "steel" is the right word for what is being portrayed? It is reasonable that it could have happened exactly as it is written, yet quite probably no one would ever actually believe the story for half a second without a testimony, much less giving a serious worry about whether or not the word "steel" was translated correctly.

Having a testimony is the paradigm changer that totally switches the burden of proof from the assumption that the story needs to be proven true scientifically to one in which the critic now has to show how to prove false what God himself has told the believer is true, while yet also showing that all possible reasonable and logical evidence is false.

We all know that "proving a falsehood" can be a challenge. Especially when God has told your audience you are wrong.

I wish you well in that endeavor but don't hold out a whole lot of hope for your success.

Thank goodness.

[mfbukowski]

For the record, I am one who thinks that the Nepihte civilization made swords of metal but that eventually became lost. That this all occurred early on in their history. But one thing I do caution is to say definitiively that they made metal swords. We really do not know that for sure according to existing records available. So, while I think they did at one time make metal swords, I do not proclaim it as an absolute conclusion. If there are those who think they never made metal swords, then fine with me. Either interpretation does not alter or change the Book of Mormon doctrines. But I do want to keep the doctrines straight and clear.

What he said.

His is shorter than mine

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorta a pansy. When I go camping I bring stuff with me. Luxuries. A knife for example. An ax. Food. clothing. A gun. I guess I am just lazy

PS... I also bring matches. Total slacker.

Oh yeah.

My wife really loves it when she sits in the car and I go off to find some obsidian to knap into something I can make into a blade to make an atlatl and braid some grass to make a fire bow with, and then wait until I catch a squirrel to skin with my obsidian blade so we can have dinner

And if you believe that one, I have a real estate deal I might interest you in.....

[Cobalt-70]

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

Okay, then, so let's call them "battle saws." But in any event, not the type of weapon described as a "sword" in the Book of Mormon. For one thing, how many references are there to people "sleeping on their sword" in the Book of Mormon? Do you really think people are going to be sleeping on a macuahuitl?

[Cobalt-70]

I wonder if cobalt hasn't gotten hilts mixed up with crossguards.

I wasn't thinking of crossguards. But I haven't seen a picture of a Macuahuitl with a hilt. Not that they don't exist, but I think for you to call it a "hilt," I think it has to have some sort of structure specially sculpted for gripping. You don't call the end of a spear shaft a "hilt," for example, even though it is possible to grip there.