Matt Roper's To Inflict the Wounds of Death

[Calm]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/inflict-wounds-death

Quote

In his account of the opening salvos of a lengthy, bloody, and costly war, the paramount warrior-prophet-historian of the Nephites wrote, “And the work of death commenced on both sides, but it was more dreadful on the part of the Lamanites, for their nakedness was exposed to the heavy blows of the Nephites with their swords and the cimeters, which brought death at almost every stroke” (Alma 43:37). Swords and cimeters were only a part of the arsenal of weaponry used by peoples of the Book of Mormon, but they were a significant one. Today I am going to talk about swords and cimeters in the Book of Mormon in light of what we can learn from Mesoamerican history, art and archaeology. First I will discuss steel swords in the Book of Mormon and the Ancient Near East including the swords of Laban. Second I will discuss Pre-Columbian swords and scimitars (i.e. curved swords) known from ancient Mexico and Central America showing examples from Mesoamerican art. What did they look like? How effective were they? And how do they compare with descriptions of swords in the Book of Mormon? Finally, I will discuss recently discovered evidence for these weapons during Book of Mormon times....

Some great pictures btw, including some rather gory ones.

Quote

 

One of the earliest criticisms of the Book of Mormon was that Laban could not have had a steel sword blade, because steel was not invented until much later. The Book of Mormon, however, has since been shown to be correct in this. 

About thirty years ago Israeli archaeologists discovered a meter long steel sword near the site of Jericho, dating to the time of King Josiah, Laban’s contemporary which is now on display at a museum in Jerusalem....

 

Quote

What about Pre-Columbian America? Let me state from the outset that no metal sword blades of any kind have been found so far from Pre-Columbian times, including steel ones. So, as one who reads the Book of Mormon and holds that it tells of things that really happened, I want to consider why that might be the case. I want to look at what the Book of Mormon actually says and not what we have sometimes assumed it to say. I will also want to see if historical and archaeological information can help me understand the nature of these things as well...

 

[RevTestament]

Quote

One of the earliest criticisms of the Book of Mormon was that Laban could not have had a steel sword blade, because steel was not invented until much later. The Book of Mormon, however, has since been shown to be correct in this. 

About thirty years ago Israeli archaeologists discovered a meter long steel sword near the site of Jericho, dating to the time of King Josiah, Laban’s contemporary which is now on display at a museum in Jerusalem....

The Bible says the Phillistines had swords at the time of Saul, but that the Israelites didn't. Archaeologists have excavated what they believe is an ancient blacksmith site in Ammon with slag dating back to the invasions of the Assyrians, when the area would have been Israelite. The ovens themselves tho haven't seemed to survive the test of time. The extreme heat required doesn't seem to allow them to survive the test of time. The Hittites were also known to have iron technology. 

The thing is "steel" is really an alloy, with a little carbon added as well. The first bog iron swords would have been brittle and highly subject to rust. It is doubtful that any of those would have survived 3 millennia. 

Good thread, Calm

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The Bible says the Phillistines had swords at the time of Saul, but that the Israelites didn't.

Can I get your reference in the bible for this please.  Interesting tidbit that I hadn't remembered reading before.

[morgan.deane]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/inflict-wounds-death

Some great pictures btw, including some rather gory ones.

 

I thought the attacks on his presentation were really unfair. The Deseret News article was good, but fairly short and couldn't capture the breadth of his arguments. Matt did a good job of showing textual evidence showing the Nephites could have lost the knowledge of metal sword making and switched to a local item. I doubt any of the critics will take the time to read the whole thing, but Matt already provided a case that answered their glib complaints.

[RevTestament]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Can I get your reference in the bible for this please.  Interesting tidbit that I hadn't remembered reading before.

1 Samuel 13

19 ¶Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

 20 But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.

 21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

 22 So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.

Now before jumping the gun, I know the Bible says Joshua used a sword, but it was probably a bronze sword.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

1 Samuel 13

19 ¶Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

 20 But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.

 21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

 22 So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found.

Now before jumping the gun, I know the Bible says Joshua used a sword, but it was probably a bronze sword.

Thanks for the quick response. 

Elites may have had access to swords through trade.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Thanks for the quick response. 

Elites may have had access to swords through trade.

The Bible says the Hebrews spoiled the Egyptians who were rich enough to have bronze swords. It is also possible they picked some up in Edom, the descendants of Lot.

The imagery of the sword goes back to the Garden of Eden. The Bible also calls the weapons of the sons of Israel swords:

Genesis 34:25

25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

A big knife may have been called a sword in the ancient Hebrew...

Edited August 23, 2016 by RevTestament

[sam]

That makes sense early settler found ancient rusted swords in Hopewell mounds and other sites.

“In digging the Louisville canal, nineteen feet below the surface, with the coals of the last domestic fire upon them, medals of copper and silver, swords and other implements of iron. Mr. Flint assures us that he has seen these strange ancient swords.”
(Conant, pg. 111, 1879)

(Items found in Hopewell Indian Ruins)

“A few miles from the town of Columbia, in Maury county, in West Tennessee, and on Duck river, are a number of fortifications, … also, several fragments of earthen ware, and a sword about two feet long, differing from any in use since the white people visited the country, apparently once highly polished, but now much eaten with rust. Those who buried these articles there, could fashion the sword, and could make bricks, and use them by the masonic art.”
(Haywood 1823, pg. 179)

(The sword at this site was found in the state of New York by Smithsonian Researchers)

“Engravings of the silver-plated discs and also of the embossed silver plate sup-posed by Dr. Hildreth to have been a sword ornament, are herewith presented. These articles have been critically examined, and it is beyond doubt that the copper “bosses” are absolutely plated, not simply overlaid, with silver. Between the copper and the silver exists a connection, such as, it seems to me, could only be produced by heat…. Again, if Dr. Hildreth is not mistaken, oxydized iron, or steel, was also discovered in connection with the above remains ; from which also follows, as a necessity upon the previous assumption, the extraordinary conclusion that the mound-builders were acquainted with the use of iron,”
(Squier, pg. 87)

(Items found in Hopewell Indian Ruins)

“On the back side, opposite the depressed portion, is a copper rivet or nail, around which are two separate plates, by which they were fastened to the leather. Two small pieces of the leather were found lying between the holes of one of the bosses. They resemble the skin of an old mummy. The plates of copper are nearly reduced to rust. Around the rivet of one of them is a quantity of flax or hemp in a tolerable state of preservation. Near the side of the human body was a plate of silver, the upper part of a sword scabbard, six inches long, two wide, weighing one ounce. Three longitudinal ridges were on it, which perhaps corresponded with the edges or ridges of the sword.”
(Haywood 1823 pg. 347)

(An iron sword was found in a North Carolina mound. Due to this item Cryus Thomas who believed that the mounds were built after the Europeans arrived. We know the Hopewell mounds were built before Columbus)

“The iron implements which are alluded to in the above-mentioned articles also in Science, as found in a North Carolina mound. “

(Cyrus Thomas 1889 pg. 31)

(Items found in Hopewell Indian Ruins)

“The iron was considerably oxidated, and when exposed to the air, dissolved and 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. The handle was round and cylindrical, and encircled with ferules or rings of silver.”
(Haywood 1823 pg. 328)

(Items found in Hopewell Indian Ruins)

“The aborigines had some very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, and possibly of steel.”
(Haywood 1823 pg. 349)

[Brant Gardner]

19 hours ago, sam said:

That makes sense early settler found ancient rusted swords in Hopewell mounds and other sites.

“In digging the Louisville canal, nineteen feet below the surface, with the coals of the last domestic fire upon them, medals of copper and silver, swords and other implements of iron. Mr. Flint assures us that he has seen these strange ancient swords.”
(Conant, pg. 111, 1879)

(Haywood 1823, pg. 179)

(Squier, pg. 87)

(Haywood 1823 pg. 347)

(Cyrus Thomas 1889 pg. 31)

(Haywood 1823 pg. 328)

(Haywood 1823 pg. 349)

I have deleted the specifics to demonstrate the issue. I have mentioned elsewhere that statements about archaeological finds from the 1800s are viewed with suspicion because they made "observations" that have never been corroborated. These examples are part of the problem. Unquestionably, they said they had swords. However, you will not find any of them in any museum. They don't exist. They have never been found by modern archaeologists. None of these were ever independently corroborated. 

This presents an issue for research. When is evidence actual evidence? Finding such statements in the literature of the 1800s is roughly equivalent to today's suggestion that if it is on the Internet it must be true.

[CA Steve]

11 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

I have deleted the specifics to demonstrate the issue. I have mentioned elsewhere that statements about archaeological finds from the 1800s are viewed with suspicion because they made "observations" that have never been corroborated. These examples are part of the problem. Unquestionably, they said they had swords. However, you will not find any of them in any museum. They don't exist. They have never been found by modern archaeologists. None of these were ever independently corroborated. 

This presents an issue for research. When is evidence actual evidence? Finding such statements in the literature of the 1800s is roughly equivalent to today's suggestion that if it is on the Internet it must be true.

Do you think this issue also applies to statements from 1800's regarding the existence of the gold plates?

[Brant Gardner]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Do you think this issue also applies to statements from 1800's regarding the existence of the gold plates?

Ultimately, the existence of the golden plates is one of faith, and not scientific evidence. There is contemporary testimony of others who saw and handled them, but you are correct that they are not currently in museums and found in archaeological sites. That part is the same.

Are you suggesting that all of the swords mentioned in 1800's era literature should be accepted as an article of faith?

[Rajah Manchou]

41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Do you think this issue also applies to statements from 1800's regarding the existence of the gold plates?

Gold plates, as well as plates from others metals, from the 1800s and before do exist, and are to be found in museums. But it is true they haven't been found in the context of a stone box in a hill in upstate New York.

In truth, there are no "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon. Most everything mentioned in the Book (with the liahona, gazelem and urim/thummim being possible exceptions) can be found dated to the right time period.