Swords Cankered with Rust...How Exactly do Wooden Swords Rust?

[igonzals]

For me Alma 1:9 is a clear evidence of the presence of a macahuitl or a similar kind of it.

The action of a european or asiatic metal sword when is used to kill a defenseless old man is simply the act of nailing or sinking BUT NEVER smitting or hitting as it is written in the verse.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/8/2016 at 0:23 PM, jkwilliams said:

 

Quote

On 6/1/2016 at 1:18 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Mosiah 8:11 reads:

I've been told that the Nephite swords weren't metal but made of wood with sharp pieces of rock implanted in them...I'm just curious how these wooden swords rust exactly?

or how they are "molten" from "ore" (Ether 7:9).

Correct, John.  First Johnnie Cake claims to have been told that the Nephite (actually Jaredite) swords were made of wood with rock (actually obsidian or flint) implanted, but doesn't bother to provide a source for this offhand claim.  Then he follows that false premise up with an assumption that they have to rust.  So, with malice aforethought, he innocently asks how can a wooden sword rust?  Fawn Brodie wrote an entire book about Joseph Smith based on just such false assumptions, absurd reasoning, and statements taken out of context.  Your terse comment shows context and doesn't ask inane questions.  Mosiah 8:9-11 must be taken in context with Ether 7:9, and such references indicate a sophisticated metallurgy, including steel blacksmithing.  Wooden swords are certainly a strong possibility in other parts of the BofM, and we know they were used and that the conquistadores called them "swords."  Johnnie Cake confuses the two separate types of weapon.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct, John.  First Johnnie Cake claims to have been told that the Nephite (actually Jaredite) swords were made of wood with rock (actually obsidian or flint) implanted, but doesn't bother to provide a source for this offhand claim.  Then he follows that false premise up with an assumption that they have to rust.  So, with malice aforethought, he innocently asks how can a wooden sword rust?  Fawn Brodie wrote an entire book about Joseph Smith based on just such false assumptions, absurd reasoning, and statements taken out of context.  Your terse comment shows context and doesn't ask inane questions.  Mosiah 8:9-11 must be taken in context with Ether 7:9, and such references indicate a sophisticated metallurgy, including steel blacksmithing.  Wooden swords are certainly a strong possibility in other parts of the BofM, and we know they were used and that the conquistadores called them "swords."  Johnnie Cake confuses the two separate types of weapon.

It still seems like a pretty glaring anachronism, as the apparently proposed Olmecs-as-Jaredites used polished ore for mirrors and other items, but there wasn't any "moltening." It's not just a question of the absence of smelted steel or iron objects but the lack of broader application of high-heat technology, which would be required for "sophisticated metallurgy," in Olmec or any other Mesoamerican civilization. IMO, the best that can be said for this is that there is no evidence of such technology being used in the time period proposed by the Book of Mormon. I suppose it's not outside the realm of slight possibility, but at this point, it's not particularly plausible. Just my two cents.

[thesometimesaint]

Meteoric Iron need not be smelted to produce reasonable quality swords.

SEE http://www.cnet.com/pictures/swords-from-the-stars-weapons-forged-from-meteoric-iron/

[bcuzbcuz]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Meteoric Iron need not be smelted to produce reasonable quality swords.

SEE http://www.cnet.com/pictures/swords-from-the-stars-weapons-forged-from-meteoric-iron/

The Pharoahnic cultures (and possibly prior) had a complete societal structure of "mining" the dry lands away from the Nile to find minerals of a great variety. They gathered all their cosmetics and colour pastes for painting from observable minerals in the sands. That they also had meteoric iron is also known......but they formed beads from the iron, not swords.

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Meteoric Iron need not be smelted to produce reasonable quality swords.

SEE http://www.cnet.com/pictures/swords-from-the-stars-weapons-forged-from-meteoric-iron/

The problem is that the text says it was smelted. That's the anachronism. 

[bcuzbcuz]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem is that the text says it was smelted. That's the anachronism. 

And because of the high nickel content the resulting worked metal is extremely brittle.....not a particular characteristic of a good sword.

Edited June 10, 2016 by bcuzbcuz

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

And because of the high nickel content the resulting worked metal is extremely brittle.....not a particular characteristic of a good sword.

Indeed. Polishing ore makes for great mirrors. Swords, not so much. Again, though, it's the process of "moltening" ore into swords that is the anachronism.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It still seems like a pretty glaring anachronism, as the apparently proposed Olmecs-as-Jaredites used polished ore for mirrors and other items, but there wasn't any "moltening." It's not just a question of the absence of smelted steel or iron objects but the lack of broader application of high-heat technology, which would be required for "sophisticated metallurgy," in Olmec or any other Mesoamerican civilization. IMO, the best that can be said for this is that there is no evidence of such technology being used in the time period proposed by the Book of Mormon. I suppose it's not outside the realm of slight possibility, but at this point, it's not particularly plausible. Just my two cents.

You make very easy judgments of what is not plausible, but  based on what?  A "pretty glaring anachronism" again based on what?  Once we get past the silliness of misreading the text (as Johnnie Cake does), we still have to ask whether adequate excavation has taken place, and we simply have very little work on that early era.  Did you read Ralph Manchou's post on the recent discovery of a theretofore completely unknown metallurgical technology in Asia?  How can we assume that we know it all, without adequate research?  Not a very plausible conclusion when based on so little research of any kind.  Like saying that Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't exist because we haven't found them yet.  Just absurd.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You make very easy judgments of what is not plausible, but  based on what?  A "pretty glaring anachronism" again based on what?  Once we get past the silliness of misreading the text (as Johnnie Cake does), we still have to ask whether adequate excavation has taken place, and we simply have very little work on that early era.  Did you read Ralph Manchou's post on the recent discovery of a theretofore completely unknown metallurgical technology in Asia?  How can we assume that we know it all, without adequate research?  Not a very plausible conclusion when based on so little research of any kind.  Like saying that Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't exist because we haven't found them yet.  Just absurd.

No one is claiming we "know it all." Please don't overstate.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

No one is claiming we "know it all." Please don't overstate.

So you are claiming that we have adequate knowledge of the Olmec period in Mesoamerica?  Perhaps you would like to cite your source(s).

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are claiming that we have adequate knowledge of the Olmec period in Mesoamerica?  Perhaps you would like to cite your source(s).

Nope, I'm saying that we don't see anything in the Olmec period that suggests high-heat metallurgy such as that described in the Book of Mormon  Is it possible that such technology would be used over millennia among more than one civilization without any noticeable effect on the material culture? I suppose so, but I don't find it likely.

 

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope, I'm saying that we don't see anything in the Olmec period that suggests high-heat metallurgy such as that described in the Book of Mormon  Is it possible that such technology would be used over millennia among more than one civilization without any noticeable effect on the material culture? I suppose so, but I don't find it likely.

 

Meteoric Iron doesn't need high-heat metallurgy to make useful tools including swords.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Meteoric Iron doesn't need high-heat metallurgy to make useful tools including swords.

I get that, but the text describes "molten" ore, which does require high-heat technology. Grinding and polishing ore are irrelevant to what the text describes. 

[thesometimesaint]

Pressure can also be used to melt iron at point of impact. Some of the best swords in the world are made by hitting and bending iron.

[Rajah Manchou]

On June 11, 2016 at 8:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

Nope, I'm saying that we don't see anything in the Olmec period that suggests high-heat metallurgy such as that described in the Book of Mormon  Is it possible that such technology would be used over millennia among more than one civilization without any noticeable effect on the material culture? I suppose so, but I don't find it likely.

I agree that it isn't likely, but it does happen. Another breaking story today about a massive city buried under the ground in Cambodia:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/11/lost-city-medieval-discovered-hidden-beneath-cambodian-jungle

Archaeologists know these people had a complex iron smelting industry but very little evidence was found for it, up until a few years ago when an archaeologist happened to be waiting at a road construction site when a bulldozer plowed through a mound of iron slag. Add this discovery to the one 9 years ago of an iron-age civilization in Malaysia dating back to 535 BC and you can see that these finds are possible, but it takes some effort and luck (and funding) to uncover them.

https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/the-ancient-ironworks-of-angkor-12426/

For reference, these iron-age sites buried under the jungle in Cambodia (and also the one in Malaysia) were inhabited from 500 BC. Like the Mayan cities they were mostly abandoned and in less than 1000 years the surface evidence rotted away, silted over, and/or was looted. It took until 2015 to identify them and we're getting the official publication about it today. I'll drop a link here once it is posted.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I agree that it isn't likely, but it does happen. Another breaking story today about a massive city buried under the ground in Cambodia:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/11/lost-city-medieval-discovered-hidden-beneath-cambodian-jungle

Archaeologists know these people had a complex iron smelting industry but very little evidence was found for it, up until a few years ago when an archaeologist happened to be waiting at a road construction site when a bulldozer plowed through a mound of iron slag. Add this discovery to the one 9 years ago of an iron-age civilization in Malaysia dating back to 535 BC and you can see that these finds are possible, but it takes some effort and luck (and funding) to uncover them.

https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/the-ancient-ironworks-of-angkor-12426/

For reference, these iron-age sites buried under the jungle in Cambodia (and also the one in Malaysia) were inhabited from 500 BC. Like the Mayan cities they were mostly abandoned and in less than 1000 years the surface evidence rotted away, silted over, and/or was looted. It took until 2015 to identify them and we're getting the official publication about it today. I'll drop a link here once it is posted.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but this doesn't address my point. High-heat metallurgy, such as that described in the Book of Mormon, has a broad effect on the material culture of the people and places where it is implemented. It's not just a lack of slag or smelting sites, but the absence of the broader impact on other aspects of the culture, such as pottery, for example. The example you give is one in which the use of iron was known from artifacts and art, but the direct evidence of smelting was absent--at least until the slag was discovered. But the presence of iron artifacts and art depicting it, and pottery created with high-heat technology, reflect what one would expect from a culture with that technology. 

The problem with the Olmec and other Precolumbian civilizations is that they not only have an absence of iron/steel artifacts, but they also lack the broader effect of high-heat technology one should see. What we do see (polished ore used as mirrors and knives) is exactly what one would expect to see from a culture without high-heat technology. Putting it simply, if you know how to extract metal from ore and have the advanced metallurgical technology to make swords and tools therefrom, you don't spend time grinding and polishing ore to make vastly inferior implements. The same is true with pottery: if you know how to produce superior pottery with high heat, you don't use crude low-tech methods to make inferior stuff. But that's exactly what we see in Precolumbian civilizations.

As an analogy, if someone in the future were to posit that smart-phone technology was available in the 1940s, one would obviously not find any discarded cell phones in period landfills. Nor would one find production facilities used to make smart phones or lithium ion batteries or touch screens or cell towers or mixed-media telecom networks. What one would find is bakelite rotary-dial phones, analog wire systems, and period-correct switchboards. But we would also see positive evidence that points away from smart-phone use, such as pay phones; paper-based maps, atlases, calendars, encyclopedias; traditional film-based cameras and film; formal portraits and photographers; and so on. 

The same is true of smelting technology and other anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as domestication of "flocks and herds" and the use of animals for transportation and work. All of these things have profound effects on material culture, but as yet we don't see any such effects.

Robert is correct that anything is possible, but it doesn't seem likely to this hardened apostate that what is described in the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the archaeological record anytime soon. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

On 6/10/2016 at 8:44 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

The Pharoahnic cultures (and possibly prior) had a complete societal structure of "mining" the dry lands away from the Nile to find minerals of a great variety. They gathered all their cosmetics and colour pastes for painting from observable minerals in the sands. That they also had meteoric iron is also known......but they formed beads from the iron, not swords.

We don't really know what technology transferred from the Middle East to Mesoamerica. We know that Mesoamericans knew about the wheel, but no evidence currently exists that it was widely used.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but this doesn't address my point. High-heat metallurgy, such as that described in the Book of Mormon, has a broad effect on the material culture of the people and places where it is implemented. It's not just a lack of slag or smelting sites, but the absence of the broader impact on other aspects of the culture, such as pottery, for example. The example you give is one in which the use of iron was known from artifacts and art, but the direct evidence of smelting was absent--at least until the slag was discovered. But the presence of iron artifacts and art depicting it, and pottery created with high-heat technology, reflect what one would expect from a culture with that technology. 

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, you are saying that high heat metallurgy would be evident in the culture and that we could easily see it. But in the case of Lembah Bujang in Malaysia, we have no known culture or ethnicity between 535 BC and the 3rd-4th century AD when Hindu and Buddhist traders arrive. That's around 700 years of iron smelting with no evidence of a material culture, no iron artifacts, or art or pottery can be found in this period. 

To build on your cell phone analogy, in this case there is plenty of evidence of the technology but no evidence of the people who used it. To address your point this shows that its possible to have 700-800 years of high-heat metallurgy and complex technologies that remain hidden until an archeologist armed with high-tech gear gets lucky.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, you are saying that high heat metallurgy would be evident in the culture and that we could easily see it. But in the case of Lembah Bujang in Malaysia, we have no known culture or ethnicity between 535 BC and the 3rd-4th century AD when Hindu and Buddhist traders arrive. That's around 700 years of iron smelting with no evidence of a material culture, no iron artifacts, or art or pottery can be found in this period. 

To build on your cell phone analogy, in this case there is plenty of evidence of the technology but no evidence of the people who used it. To address your point this shows that its possible to have 700-800 years of high-heat metallurgy and complex technologies that remain hidden until an archeologist armed with high-tech gear gets lucky.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding me, but in a way, you've made my point. How do we know of ancient smelting in the Bujang valley? They left remains (smelters, forges, slag, and so on). So, what you're saying is that it's possible to find evidence of a technology, even though a corresponding material culture. I suppose that is possible, indeed, but I don't know what it has to do with Book of Mormon evidence. What we are talking about is a large culture that existed in a known period that left no traces of itself or its technology, which is clearly not the case in the Bujang valley.

Either way, I was responding specifically to Robert's introduction of Olmec polished ore into the discussion, which to my mind, rather points away from high-heat technology having been used. 

It seems to me that you are resting on the old idea of "well, we just haven't found it yet, so it can't be ruled out." Fair enough, but I don't see any evidence leading us to believe such a discovery is near at all. 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I think you're misunderstanding me, but in a way, you've made my point. How do we know of ancient smelting in the Bujang valley? They left remains (smelters, forges, slag, and so on). So, what you're saying is that it's possible to find evidence of a technology, even though a corresponding material culture. I suppose that is possible, indeed, but I don't know what it has to do with Book of Mormon evidence. What we are talking about is a large culture that existed in a known period that left no traces of itself or its technology, which is clearly not the case in the Bujang valley.

Either way, I was responding specifically to Robert's introduction of Olmec polished ore into the discussion, which to my mind, rather points away from high-heat technology having been used. 

It seems to me that you are resting on the old idea of "well, we just haven't found it yet, so it can't be ruled out." Fair enough, but I don't see any evidence leading us to believe such a discovery is near at all. 

True, archeologists would be much more excited about finding a slag heap in Guatemala than they would be finding one in SE Asia. Precisely because it would be so unexpected (and unlikely) given the evidence accumulated to date.

(Full disclosure: I'm in the Asian BOM model camp so I think we have found evidence, in the Bujang Valley. Maybe that's why we're misunderstanding one another.)

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Rajah Manchou said:

True, archeologists would be much more excited about finding a slag heap in Guatemala than they would be finding one in SE Asia. Precisely because it would be so unexpected (and unlikely) given the evidence accumulated to date.

(Full disclosure: I'm in the Asian BOM model camp so I think we have found evidence, in the Bujang Valley. Maybe that's why we're misunderstanding one another.)

That's fascinating. Either way, the very fact that the Olmecs used an obviously cruder and inferior technology suggests that they didn't have better technology present. That's why I find Robert's assertion so problematic that Olmec "metallurgy" is a possible match for Jaredite smelting.

[bcuzbcuz]

On 10 juni 2016 at 4:44 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi Gervin.  Welcome back.  Haven't heard from you in awhile.

"large quantities" means tons of drilled iron cubes.  Literally.  They also had many highly polished magnetite mirrors, in addition to which one magnetite pointer has been recovered (which Mike Coe considers the world's first compass, and it was so finely wrought that he said it appeared to have been "machined").

World's first compass? Really? Isn't this just a tad "presentism"? Our concept that a bit of magnetite, which aligns with a north-south directions could be used as a compass pre-supposes that the person/people using it see either north as up or a direction worth noting, or the same for a southerly direction. Read the article from BBC, where the discussion of map alignment is dealt with.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different

By Caroline Williams

Imagine looking at the Earth from space. What is at the top of the planet? If you said the North Pole, you probably wouldn’t be alone. Strictly speaking, you wouldn’t be right either.

The uncomfortable truth is that despite almost everybody imagining that the world is this way up, there is no good, scientific reason to think of north as being the roof of the world.

The story of how it came to be considered to be that way is heady mix of history, astrophysics and psychology. And it leads to an important conclusion: it turns out that the way we have decided to map the world has very real consequences for how we feel about it.

Navigating brain

Understanding where you are in the world is a basic survival skill, which is why we, like most species come hard-wired with specialised brain areas to create cognitive maps of our surroundings. Where humans are unique, though, with the possible exception of honeybees, is that we try to communicate this understanding of the world with others. We have a long history of doing this by drawing maps – the earliest versions yet discovered were scrawled on cave walls 14,000 years ago. Human cultures have been drawing them on stone tablets, papyrus, paper and now computer screens ever since.

It is only within the last few hundred years that north has been consistently at the top

Given such a long history of human map-making, it is perhaps surprising that it is only within the last few hundred years that north has been consistently considered to be at the top. In fact, for much of human history, north almost never appeared at the top, according to Jerry Brotton, a map historian from Queen Mary University, London and author of A History of the World in Twelve Maps. “North was rarely put at the top for the simple fact that north is where darkness comes from,” he says. “West is also very unlikely to be put at the top because west is where the sun disappears.”

Confusingly, early Chinese maps seem to buck this trend. But, Brotton, says, even though they did have compasses at the time, that isn’t the reason that they placed north at the top. Early Chinese compasses were actually oriented to point south, which was considered to be more desirable than deepest darkest north. But in Chinese maps, the Emperor, who lived in the north of the country was always put at the top of the map, with everyone else, his loyal subjects, looking up towards him.  “In Chinese culture the Emperor looks south because it’s where the winds come from, it’s a good direction. North is not very good but you are in a position of subjection to the emperor, so you look up to him,” says Brotton.

 

The Kangnido map, a Chinese-influenced Korean map from 1402 (Credit: Wikipedia)

 

Given that each culture has a very different idea of who, or what, they should look up to it’s perhaps not surprising that there is very little consistency in which way early maps pointed. In ancient Egyptian times the top of the world was east, the position of sunrise. Early Islamic maps favoured south at the top because most of the early Muslim cultures were north of Mecca, so they imagined looking up (south) towards it:

 

Muhammad Al Idrissi’s map Tabula Rogeriana from 1154, upside down with north at the top (Credit: Wikipedia)

 

Christian maps from the same era (called Mappa Mundi) put east at the top, towards the Garden of Eden and with Jerusalem in the centre.

 

The Hereford Mappa Mundi from 1300 (Credit: Wikipedia)

 

So when did everyone get together and decide that north was the top? It’s tempting to put it down to European explorers like Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Megellan, who were navigating by the North Star. But Brotton argues that these early explorers didn’t think of the world like that at all. “When Columbus describes the world it is in accordance with east being at the top,” he says. “Columbus says he is going towards paradise, so his mentality is from a medieval mappa mundi.” We’ve got to remember, adds Brotton, that at the time, “no one knows what they are doing and where they are going”.

Mercator’s world map, from 1569, was a defining moment in north-up map-making

Mercator’s world map, from 1569, was almost certainly a defining moment in north-up map-making. His map was famously the first to take into account the curvature of the Earth, so that sailors could cross long distances without overshooting the mark. Again, though, Brotton says that north had little to do with it.  “Mercator projected the poles to infinity. He says in his description that it doesn’t matter because we are not terribly interested in sailing to them. North is at the top but nobody cares about north because we’re not going there.”

Even so, he could have put the map either way up. Perhaps the choice was simply because the Europeans were doing most of the exploring at the time: in the northern hemisphere, there is far more land to explore and far more people.

 

The 1569 Mercator map of the world (Credit: Wikipedia)

 

Whatever the reasons, north up is an idea that seems to have stuck. Take this famous Nasa image from 1973. This photograph was actually taken with south at the top, because the astronaut who took it was spinning around at the time. Nasa decided to flip it over to avoid confusing people.

 

This image of Earth was photographed this way round, but flipped before publication (Credit: Nasa)

 

When you start looking at the Earth from space though, the idea of it being any particular way up starts to make even less sense. It’s true that, as we all learned in school, the Earth lines up along the same plane as all of the other planets in the solar system because they all formed out of the same cloud of spinning dust. It is also true, though, that this picture could just as easily be put upside down or with the Sun at the top or bottom, depending on where in space you happen to be looking from.

 

(Credit: Nasa)

 

And compared to the rest of the Milky Way, our entire solar system is off kilter by about 63 degrees.

While astronomers have found that stars and planets align with their neighbours in similar ways all over space, Daniel Mortlock, an astrophysicist at Imperial College London, says that this is only true at a tiny scale compared to the vastness of the Universe. “As far as we astronomers can tell, there really is no ‘up’ or ‘down’ in space,” he says.

So the answer to the question of which way up is the Earth is simple: it is not any particular way up and there is no good reason other than a historical superiority complex to think of north as being the top of the world.

Yet is it time to start embracing a different view of the planet from the one we are used to? Perhaps, because evidence from psychology suggests that our north-up culture might be polluting the way we think of what is valuable in the world.

 

Could there be a northern bias that shapes how we think about some parts of the planet? (Credit: Nasa)

 

A well-known bias in psychology reveals that most people think of north as being ‘up’ and south, ‘down’. Brian Meier, a psychologist at Gettysberg College in Pennsylvania, has also found that people unconsciously process positive words as if they were higher in space than negative ones. So he wondered whether these two things, north = up and good = up affect the value that people put on different areas on a map.

It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that people are less likely to care about countries that are ‘lower’ than them

Sure enough, when shown a map of a hypothetical city and asked where they would like to live, people were significantly more likely to choose an area in the north of the city. And when another group of people were asked where fictitious people of different social status would live, they plotted them on the map with the richest in the north and poorest in the south.

It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that people are less likely to care what happens in countries or regions that are ‘lower’ than them on the map or globe.

The good news is that in Meier’s experiments the relationship between ‘north’ and ‘good’ was eliminated by one simple thing – turning the map upside down. So perhaps the world might get a little fairer if we just took a look at it another way up now and again. South-up maps are easily available online. It is also something that Mortlock is very much in favour of: “As an Australian, I think it should be done more often,” he says.

If nothing else, it’s a sure-fire way to make the world seem fresh, and unexplored, once more. With so few earthbound discoveries left for our generation to make, all we can do is – to paraphrase Marcel Proust – look again at the world we’ve got, but this time, through different eyes.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/13/2016 at 7:45 AM, jkwilliams said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but this doesn't address my point. High-heat metallurgy, such as that described in the Book of Mormon, has a broad effect on the material culture of the people and places where it is implemented. It's not just a lack of slag or smelting sites, but the absence of the broader impact on other aspects of the culture, such as pottery, for example. The example you give is one in which the use of iron was known from artifacts and art, but the direct evidence of smelting was absent--at least until the slag was discovered. But the presence of iron artifacts and art depicting it, and pottery created with high-heat technology, reflect what one would expect from a culture with that technology. 

The problem with the Olmec and other Precolumbian civilizations is that they not only have an absence of iron/steel artifacts,

While it is true that we have not found any steel artifacts from Olmec times, it is not true that there is "an absence of iron . . . artifacts."  There is a plethora of iron artifacts.  Once again you prejudice the discussion by misstating the facts.  The focus on lack of high heat technology is your best suit, and you should focus there, while openly admitting that we have so little excavation of the Olmec period that we don't really know what is there.  For that, Ralph Manchou's notes should provide some sobriety in place of hasty judgments.

but they also lack the broader effect of high-heat technology one should see. What we do see (polished ore used as mirrors and knives) is exactly what one would expect to see from a culture without high-heat technology. Putting it simply, if you know how to extract metal from ore and have the advanced metallurgical technology to make swords and tools therefrom, you don't spend time grinding and polishing ore to make vastly inferior implements. The same is true with pottery: if you know how to produce superior pottery with high heat, you don't use crude low-tech methods to make inferior stuff. But that's exactly what we see in Precolumbian civilizations.

For you, John, it appears to be an either/or proposition, while the anthropologist is more concerned with what is in fact found.  There is nothing crude about that magnetite pointer found by Mike Coe.  And "crude" and "inferior" are not words used to describe those magnetite mirrors, but only used to prejudice the interested observer.

...................................................................

The same is true of smelting technology and other anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as domestication of "flocks and herds" and the use of animals for transportation and work. All of these things have profound effects on material culture, but as yet we don't see any such effects.

We know  historically of many instances in which high technology is used, then lost.  We still cannot reproduce, for example, the high tech methods used to produce Viking steel swords.  In the case of Samurai swords we do know how because there has been continuity.  In the case of the BofM, we have no continuity.  Part of the problem may be that blacksmithing was bound up with magic and was a closely held knowledge -- meaning that the disappearance of a civilization entailed the disappearance of that technology.  We also need to be at least somewhat reasonable when considering items such as "flocks & herds."  What are we really talking about?  You yourself brought up llamas, and then there are the vicunas and alpacas and many other animals which have been proposed as part of flocks & herds.   Should we automatically exclude them based on our ignorance of the period in question?

Robert is correct that anything is possible, ...........................................

I didn't say that, and I render judgments based on real-world anthropology.  Not on wild speculation, whether positive or negative.

 

[jkwilliams]

Robert, I think you are seeing my position as more black and white than it is. Yes, there are iron ore artifacts, but then I think you knew I wasn't talking about that. I don't see anything that indicates the use of high-heat technologies in either the Jaredite or Nephite time periods in the Americas. That's all I'm saying. You seem to agree but hold out more hope than I do that it will be forthcoming.