Metal Swords?

[Calm]

Also, if Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, then they weren't very good metallurgists, because they made a steel bow so poorly that it broke during use (1 Ne. 16:18).

The steel bow shows up early in the text, shortly after they have left Jerusalem.

Why do you conclude that either Lehi or Nephi was the one who made the steel bow?

[volgadon]

Cobalt, a macuahuitl is not a club. Everyone has told you this.

You assume that he is listening. I posted a link to a respectable non-LDS book on military history which shows that the macuahuitl was neither club nor preposterously-termed "battle saw." Coblat doesn't have much credibility left regarding this topic.

[Cobalt-70]

Once again, CFR [as to which Mormon archaeologists are respectible in their peer-reviewed publications, yet have fringy side interests about which they speak with Mormons using far less academic standards]. Who are these guys you mention?

I think it's obvious, the short list of Mormon scholars whom I'm talking about. Let's not get into naming names.

So, you are saying that both sets of comparison here [parallels to Old World measures vs. parallels to A View of the Hebrews] are equally vague and meaningless?

No, I'm just saying that you shouldn't use a different standard. For example, in one case, you shouldn't completely ignore the "noise" within your parallel, and then in another publication, you focus only on the noise within someone else's parallel.

Once again, as an admittedly interested party, you insist on phrasing the problem in such a way that the conclusion is predetermined. Wouldn't it be better to examine the unstated assumption, which is that the non-Mormon scholar (who has the qualifications) has actually studied the Book of Mormon in the same way a biblical archeologist has already intensively studied the Bible before ever setting out to dig and interpret a Tel. Perhaps you know of such a person. I do not. And you appear to be asking the impossible.

I can promise you that if the Book of Mormon were able to inform Mesoamerican (or heartlander, or Malay peninsulan, or Baja Californian, etc.) archaeology, then there would be non-Mormon archaeologists openly or secretly using the Book of Mormon for their benefit in the field. What non-Mormon archaeologist wouldn't want to uncover the lost temple of Zarahemla, or a lost Nephite fort, if they existed? And if they happened to come across such things in the course of their normal mainstream digs, which of them wouldn't publish the results?

[thesometimesaint]

Did Troy exist before it was found?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You assume that he is listening. I posted a link to a respectable non-LDS book on military history which shows that the macuahuitl was neither club nor preposterously-termed "battle saw." Coblat doesn't have much credibility left regarding this topic.

Rofl.

We are still having this discussion? What is insanity?

[volgadon]

But nobody is going to snuggle up with a macuahuitl the way you did with your gun. Achilles, Alexander, and all the rest, would think they were crazy to snuggle up with an obsidian-studded club. They were much smarter, and used real swords with sheaths,

How smugly superior can you get? Far from being an indication of stupidity on the part of Mesoamericans, macuahuitls are an ingenious way to make swords without bronze, iron or steel.

As to the hypothetical of Alexander of Macedon sticking his nose up at macuahuitls, his success was in a large measure due to flexibility and adaptivity. His army incorporateed men from a substantial portion of the known world. Did he dismiss bamboo spears as stupid because his men used real lances? No, his Indian auxiliaries made substantial use of bamboo spears. Were Alexander to have encountered macuahuitls, it seems probable that he would have incorporated them into his armies. The Spaniards, whose insularity and cultural arrogance were notorious, had a high opinion of macuahuitls. The opinion of professional men-at-arms ought to count for something.

and would have assumed the Book of Mormon characters did likewise--as do essentially all readers of the Book of Mormon (such as Joseph Smith, apparently) who are unaware that real swords are an anachronism and therefore have no need to invent an ingenious work-around.

All your Freiberg painting shows is an artist painting dispraportionate people in anachronistic and inaccurate Roman gear.

[Anijen]

Cobalt-70

Robert F. Smith, on 03 June 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Once again, CFR [as to which Mormon archaeologists are respectible in their peer-reviewed publications, yet have fringy side interests about which they speak with Mormons using far less academic standards]. Who are these guys you mention?

I think it's obvious, the short list of Mormon scholars whom I'm talking about. Let's not get into naming names.

That is your answer to a CFR? No wonder you are not taken seriously. Edited June 4, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Robert F. Smith]

Again, the issue is that there has to be two different hieroglyphs, one for "iron" and one for "steel." But the source of such a distinction is not, as far as you have provided any evidence, derived from either Egyptian or Hebrew.

So you say. In fact we have one Egyptian word for both. All of our interpretations must be conditioned by the archeological evidence, which you feel free to discard. The same is true for Hebrew. All of us have our druthers, but we must finally deal with reality, a reality which can cramp our a priori preferences.

So suppose that Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, and they actually taught their descendants to make actual steel (traces of which are heretofore undiscovered by archaeologists) and invented some newfangled word for actual steel that did not exist in either Egyptian or Hebrew, which Smith correctly translated as "steel."

Coming as they did from a civilization which regularly made steel (in both Judah and South Arabia), they may indeed have passed on the technical knowledge and skill, and they may already have had an additional technical term for "steel" as differentiated from uncarburized iron. Whether that skill and knowledge continued beyond that early period is not known, but archeologists will tell you that they dig only a very small percentage of available sources of occupation, and that beyond that the survival of artifacts is quite rare. The automatic assumption that any steel produced would be found is absurd.

Another problem is that the Hebrew Bible is of limited value as a dictionary of the language of Classical Israel. In fact, so limited is it that we possess only about half the actual full vocabulary of ancient, biblical Hebrew (which to judge by neighboring cultures, should be about 1500 words, while for Hebrew we have only about 700 words). We need far more ancient Hebrew inscriptions.

Then why didn't Joseph Smith correctly provide the proper English word for whatever "ziff" is, or whatever "cureloms" or "cumoms" are, or what "sheum" is?

The assumption which seems reasonable is that Joseph Smith had no equivalent terms in his English vocabulary. I have already provided a suggested etymology for ziff above.

I have many times commented on the source of sheum as a plant unknown to Joseph many times since I discovered the source in 1969. Here is one from this board at http://www.mormondia...99/page__st__40

The neas and sheum in Mosiah 9:9 could have been amaranth [as Zakuska notes in post #47], jocote (mombin), manioc (cassava),[1] or any sort of grains or food plants native to the Americas and unknown to Joseph Smith. They need not have been introduced from elsewhere. As a grain, amaranth has no peer, being far more nutritious than any other known grain. It went out of general use in Mexico due to its pagan religious use, under pressure from the Roman Catholic Church. It is a good example of a successful cultigen nearly disappearing from common use. The Mexican and Mesoamerican diet is very rich and nutritious, maize (corn) being one of the most successful cultigens on earth. There is no reason to imagine that use of barley and wheat thousands of years ago in an upland setting would necessarily be continued to the present. Particularly if those using it suffered a violent demise.

As a generic term for grain, sheum could not have been brought over in that linguistic form by the Nephites or Mulekites, but would have to have been brought over by the Jaredites from Mesopotamia, and then passed on to the Mulekites. As pointed by Livy and others, grains grow just fine in the temperate altiplano (high altitude) regions of Mexico and Mesoamerica -- the Land of Nephi probably being in highland Guatemala, rather than in the lowland rain forest (jungle).

[1] Manioc was recently discovered at Ceren, El Salvador, to be dated 1400 years ago to the time of a massive volcanic eruption (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820122541.htm , and www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616133940.htm ).

Jaredite cureloms and cumoms could have been any one of a number of animals not known to Joseph -- perhaps even vicunas, alpacas, or llamas imported from South America (the Olmec had such far-flung trade). We just don't know. However, I don't understand your problem with such terminology in a translated document.

Also, if Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, then they weren't very good metallurgists, because they made a steel bow so poorly that it broke during use (1 Ne. 16:18).

We do not know who made that composite bow nor how long it was in use, but (as you might have noted in the Samurai sword video) there is always the danger of having too rigid a bow depending on how the steel was treated by the blacksmith. It may also have been a case of metal fatigue. Saying that "they weren't very good metallurgists," goes far beyond the available evidence.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[S.Ferreira]

If you want to get a look at a modern Maquahuitl made with old-world skills,

. The author swings his large maquahuitl and says “the amount of velocity and torque you would have on the end here would really be effective. I’m sure it would probably be able to sever limbs and other body parts pretty readily.”

I don’t mean here to imply the guy in the video is doing this as a BoM apologist or not…I don’t know the man personally. I just think it's interesting to see a video example of what's being mentioned here.

[ERayR]

I think it's obvious, the short list of Mormon scholars whom I'm talking about. Let's not get into naming names.

Then why do you mention it at all?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think it's obvious, the short list of Mormon scholars whom I'm talking about. Let's not get into naming names.

Within the real scholarly community no one hesitates to name names. There is nothing "obvious" about it. I know of no such scholars and neither do you.

No, I'm just saying that you shouldn't use a different standard. For example, in one case, you shouldn't completely ignore the "noise" within your parallel, and then in another publication, you focus only on the noise within someone else's parallel.

You said no.

So the parallels adduced in these two cases are not considered by you as equally vague. Or are you complaining only because they were not both automatically negative in their assessment? You certainly have the right to prepare a substantive review of either article, or on the general case being made in each case -- and you can find plenty of venues for publication. So, why don't you take that route instead of dealing in insubstantial generalities? In the real world, you do not have the right to expect that everyone will automatically take your particular a priori views. Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to dismiss their position with a wave of the hand. At least do us the courtesy of making a substantive analysis and presenting it to us.

I can promise you that if the Book of Mormon were able to inform Mesoamerican (or heartlander, or Malay peninsulan, or Baja Californian, etc.) archaeology, then there would be non-Mormon archaeologists openly or secretly using the Book of Mormon for their benefit in the field. What non-Mormon archaeologist wouldn't want to uncover the lost temple of Zarahemla, or a lost Nephite fort, if they existed? And if they happened to come across such things in the course of their normal mainstream digs, which of them wouldn't publish the results?

Your promise is about as good as a claim that you own the Brooklyn Bridge and will sell it to me cheap. C'mon Cobalt, get real! You are again assuming what has to be proved, i.e., that there are serious non-Mormon archeologists who have made an intensive study of the Book of Mormon (in the same way that Near Eastern scholars know their documents) and who therefore already know that there is nothing there which can inform their professional work.

This, from the same Cobalt who rejects anthropological reality out of hand on the matter of the macuahuitl, i.e., you ignore the actual observations made by the Conquistadores because it is inconvenient to your a priori case. You are not even willing to accept normative, non-Mormon observations on such matters. No dialogue or progress in scholarship is conceivable on that anti-intellectual basis.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

How smugly superior can you get? Far from being an indication of stupidity on the part of Mesoamericans, macuahuitls are an ingenious way to make swords without bronze, iron or steel.

As to the hypothetical of Alexander of Macedon sticking his nose up at macuahuitls, his success was in a large measure due to flexibility and adaptivity. His army incorporateed men from a substantial portion of the known world. Did he dismiss bamboo spears as stupid because his men used real lances? No, his Indian auxiliaries made substantial use of bamboo spears. Were Alexander to have encountered macuahuitls, it seems probable that he would have incorporated them into his armies. The Spaniards, whose insularity and cultural arrogance were notorious, had a high opinion of macuahuitls. The opinion of professional men-at-arms ought to count for something.

No, you misunderstand. The stupidity would be sleeping on the macuahuitl, not using it. If the Nephites slept on their macuahuitls, they were not very smart. Alexander certainly never ordered his soldiers to sleep on their spiked metal maces.

[mfbukowski]

No, you misunderstand. The stupidity would be sleeping on the macuahuitl, not using it. If the Nephites slept on their macuahuitls, they were not very smart. Alexander certainly never ordered his soldiers to sleep on their spiked metal maces.

On the other hand, we have people who stubbornly persist in arguing that "on" here means literally "physically on top of" when numerous other possibilities have already been given for alternate meanings.

[Cobalt-70]

So you say. In fact we have one Egyptian word for both. All of our interpretations must be conditioned by the archeological evidence, which you feel free to discard. The same is true for Hebrew. All of us have our druthers, but we must finally deal with reality, a reality which can cramp our a priori preferences.

It clearly has to have been two hieroglyphs. 2 Nephi 5:15 says, "and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel...." The original Reformed Egyptian obviously did not read "and of iron/steel, and of copper/brass, and of copper/brass, and of iron/steel." Likewise, Jarom 1:8 in its Reformed Egyptian form did not read "and also in iron/steel and copper/brass, and copper/brass and iron/steel..." It is both redundant and it says the same thing twice.

Coming as they did from a civilization which regularly made steel (in both Judah and South Arabia), they may indeed have passed on the technical knowledge and skill, and they may already have had an additional technical term for "steel" as differentiated from uncarburized iron. Whether that skill and knowledge continued beyond that early period is not known, but archeologists will tell you that they dig only a very small percentage of available sources of occupation, and that beyond that the survival of artifacts is quite rare. The automatic assumption that any steel produced would be found is absurd.

Another problem is that the Hebrew Bible is of limited value as a dictionary of the language of Classical Israel. In fact, so limited is it that we possess only about half the actual full vocabulary of ancient, biblical Hebrew (which to judge by neighboring cultures, should be about 1500 words, while for Hebrew we have only about 700 words). We need far more ancient Hebrew inscriptions.

So again, you are trying to rebut impossibility, rather than proving actuality. It's possible that the Jaredites had fusion drives, and that's how they powered the glowing stones they used in their barges. We just haven't been digging in enough places, and we don't know enough about their language to rule out the possibility.

Jaredite cureloms and cumoms could have been any one of a number of animals not known to Joseph -- perhaps even vicunas, alpacas, or llamas imported from South America (the Olmec had such far-flung trade). We just don't know. However, I don't understand your problem with such terminology in a translated document.

The problem is that if the hieroglyph translated as "steel" represented a material unknown to Smith, he would have transliterated it. Therefore, it had to be actual steel. The reference in Ether 7:9 to "swords [made] out of steel [molten out of the hill Ephraim]" had to be swords made of actual steel, not wood and obsidian.

[mfbukowski]

This is an interesting, related thread about wooden weapons on another board including a Pacific Islander version of the macuahuitl and mention of warriors using wooden swords winning against steel swords

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=137498

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/hawaii_war_club_122.jpg

[Cobalt-70]

Within the real scholarly community no one hesitates to name names. There is nothing "obvious" about it. I know of no such scholars and neither do you.

Okay, fine. I'm thinking particularly about John L. Sorenson and the archaeologists who have been involved with the NWAF, such as John E. Clarke. But this is not at all to ding their peer reviewed archaeological work. But if pressed, I think even they would have to admit that their conclusions directed to a Mormon audience are less rigorous than the academic standards they apply to their mainstream peer-reviewed work. It's two different worlds.

This, from the same Cobalt who rejects anthropological reality out of hand on the matter of the macuahuitl, i.e., you ignore the actual observations made by the Conquistadores because it is inconvenient to your a priori case. You are not even willing to accept normative, non-Mormon observations on such matters. No dialogue or progress in scholarship is conceivable on that anti-intellectual basis.

What? That a macuahuitl could dismember? I'll concede that. That doesn't make it a sword, though. You could dismember somebody with a chainsaw, too. The macuahuitl did damage in one of two ways: through mace-like piercing, or through a sawing action. It is nothing like a sword, other than the fact it is long and thin. It is a combination mace and saw--some being more mace, and others being more saw.

[volgadon]

or through a sawing action.

CFR.

[volgadon]

Also, please explain why you reject the explicit testimony of Bernal Diaz, a professional man-at-arms.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8ZAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA24&dq=bernal+diaz+macana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XCPQT4f-G8Ts2QW4o6y5DA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=two-handed&f=false

[DBMormon]

Do you think Laban's sword may have looked like the sword VOLTRON used?

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

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay, fine. I'm thinking particularly about John L. Sorenson and the archaeologists who have been involved with the NWAF, such as John E. Clarke. But this is not at all to ding their peer reviewed archaeological work. But if pressed, I think even they would have to admit that their conclusions directed to a Mormon audience are less rigorous than the academic standards they apply to their mainstream peer-reviewed work. It's two different worlds.

Michael Coe, just like Sorenson, Clark, and other anthropology professionals write and publish popular books and articles, just as they publish more technical pieces. You are basically faulting Coe for his popular works, which are not prepared in the fashion of excavation reports nor presented in regular academic journals. Your comments are reckless and inappropriate. When a substantive review is called for you substitute a special animosity for the Mormons and give the non-Mormons a pass.

The general public enjoys interpretive pieces by the experts, and there is no reason, for example, why Coe should not meet that demand with books such as his Atlas of Ancient America (1986), with Dean Snow and Elizabeth Benson, in which they cover the entirety of the Western Hemisphere. On page 100, in covering the Olmecs, he explains that "obsidian, . . played a role in Mesoamerica similar to steel in western civilization." Then he goes on to discuss how "iron ore . . . was turned into parabolic, concave mirrors which must have played a great ritual role. One finely tooled, lodestone sliver may well have acted as the world's first known compass, dedicated to geomantic purposes." Funny how we never hear him discuss such matters when discussing the Book of Mormon. Funny how you carefully ignore such information.

What? That a macuahuitl could dismember? I'll concede that. That doesn't make it a sword, though. You could dismember somebody with a chainsaw, too. The macuahuitl did damage in one of two ways: through mace-like piercing, or through a sawing action. It is nothing like a sword, other than the fact it is long and thin. It is a combination mace and saw--some being more mace, and others being more saw.

Submit your notions to third party professional review, and you will find them guffawing at your description. With obsidian blades along both sides, the macuahuitl was used just like a sword and could take off a horsehead in one stroke -- just like a Samurai sword. There was no sawing action whatever. Just like steel, only sharper, the obsidian was key to understanding the method of operation, which was the same for hand-scythes during harvest in the ancient Near East. Lehi & Nephi could have designed one without difficulty.

[mfbukowski]

Michael Coe, just like Sorenson, Clark, and other anthropology professionals write and publish popular books and articles, just as they publish more technical pieces. You are basically faulting Coe for his popular works, which are not prepared in the fashion of excavation reports nor presented in regular academic journals. Your comments are reckless and inappropriate. When a substantive review is called for you substitute a special animosity for the Mormons and give the non-Mormons a pass.

The general public enjoys interpretive pieces by the experts, and there is no reason, for example, why Coe should not meet that demand with books such as his Atlas of Ancient America (1986), with Dean Snow and Elizabeth Benson, in which they cover the entirety of the Western Hemisphere. On page 100, in covering the Olmecs, he explains that "obsidian, . . played a role in Mesoamerica similar to steel in western civilization." Then he goes on to discuss how "iron ore . . . was turned into parabolic, concave mirrors which must have played a great ritual role. One finely tooled, lodestone sliver may well have acted as the world's first known compass, dedicated to geomantic purposes." Funny how we never hear him discuss such matters when discussing the Book of Mormon. Funny how you carefully ignore such information.

Submit your notions to third party professional review, and you will find them guffawing at your description. With obsidian blades along both sides, the macuahuitl was used just like a sword and could take off a horsehead in one stroke -- just like a Samurai sword. There was no sawing action whatever. Just like steel, only sharper, the obsidian was key to understanding the method of operation, which was the same for hand-scythes during harvest in the ancient Near East. Lehi & Nephi could have designed one without difficulty.

I must admit I have never dismembered anyone but I have cut a sapling with one stroke of a steel blade and indeed it is more a matter of skill than it is a matter of the kind of blade you are using. The trick is to get the angle just right- one would think that a 90 degree chop would be the shortest distance between two points, but you are also hitting the most resistance that way, and the wood will resist you and bend and will not allow the blade to penetrate. Actually cutting at a fairly steep angle with a diagonal stroke is the trick, using gravity in your favor to both keep the object from bending and to help retain the velocity of the blade. Further, you are cutting with the grain for the most part instead of across it allowing the blade to meet resistance obliquely instead of encountering it all at once in a very small section of blade. Indeed if one tries to go straight across the grain, the blade may make only a shallow cut, but when cutting on the angle with the same effort, it can go completely through the wood making a clean cut,

As I have said before, obsidian and flint are definitely harder and therefore sharper than steel- were that not the case, steel would not flake off when struck with flint and would not make a spark.

[altersteve]

What? That a macuahuitl could dismember? I'll concede that. That doesn't make it a sword, though. You could dismember somebody with a chainsaw, too. The macuahuitl did damage in one of two ways: through mace-like piercing, or through a sawing action. It is nothing like a sword, other than the fact it is long and thin. It is a combination mace and saw--some being more mace, and others being more saw.

Have you ever used a macuahuitl? Have you ever seen one being used? If not, then how can you know this?

It's not a mace or a saw, Cobalt. How many times do you have to be told this?

[Robert F. Smith]

I must admit I have never dismembered anyone but I have cut a sapling with one stroke of a steel blade and indeed it is more a matter of skill than it is a matter of the kind of blade you are using. The trick is to get the angle just right- one would think that a 90 degree chop would be the shortest distance between two points, but you are also hitting the most resistance that way, and the wood will resist you and bend and will not allow the blade to penetrate. Actually cutting at a fairly steep angle with a diagonal stroke is the trick, using gravity in your favor to both keep the object from bending and to help retain the velocity of the blade. Further, you are cutting with the grain for the most part instead of across it allowing the blade to meet resistance obliquely instead of encountering it all at once in a very small section of blade. Indeed if one tries to go straight across the grain, the blade may make only a shallow cut, but when cutting on the angle with the same effort, it can go completely through the wood making a clean cut,

As I have said before, obsidian and flint are definitely harder and therefore sharper than steel- were that not the case, steel would not flake off when struck with flint and would not make a spark.

Yes, and that is why the slight curve of the Samurai katana is so important -- something like a sabre, cutlass, or the Book of Mormon cimeter (scimitar).

[mfbukowski]

Yes, and that is why the slight curve of the Samurai katana is so important -- something like a sabre, cutlass, or the Book of Mormon cimeter (scimitar).

Exactly. And when you think about that, the macuahuitl actually has a series of curved blades each of which function like the curved blade of scimitar. It works like numerous little scimitars instead of using a straight blade, and has more cutting edge in contact with the object being cut than a straight blade would.

Given an equal amount of force in each case, the curved blade will cut faster for that reason- more edge in contact with the object

[Stargazer]

What? That a macuahuitl could dismember? I'll concede that. That doesn't make it a sword, though. You could dismember somebody with a chainsaw, too. The macuahuitl did damage in one of two ways: through mace-like piercing, or through a sawing action. It is nothing like a sword, other than the fact it is long and thin. It is a combination mace and saw--some being more mace, and others being more saw.

I am sure you have seen obsidian? That it can form edges that a very very sharp? Sawing action is not necessary, believe me.

I have personal experience with another sharp crystalline rock, called calcite. This mineral doesn't flake the way obsidian or even flint does -- so far as I know, anyway -- but it does form straight crystalline edges. I found a nice big chunk of calcite in the field when i was a teenager. It had a sharp, straight edge, and I thought to myself that here was a stone-age caliber edged tool, I wonder if it could cut meat, really? Like an idiot I then proceeded to draw it fairly lightly across my palm. I was shocked to find that I had cut myself, drawing blood, with just a light touch! In fact, if I had done the same with one of our kitchen knives (the sharp variety) I wouldn't have cut myself that deeply, if at all, at the pressure I used.

None of the descriptions I have seen of a macuahuitl's action even suggested they employed it with a "sawing" action.

I don't believe I have ever seen someone deny the obvious with quite so much certiitude as you, Cobalt-70. In fact, your certainty on this smacks of protesting too much. Are you afraid to give in even an inch? Conceding that a macuahuitl is a genuine sword analog does not prove that the Book of Mormon is a historical book any more than the name Nephi being clearly Egyptian does.

Give in on the point. You know you want to.