Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part VII

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of “metal” terminology in the scriptural record. It is important to understand that simple comments, like Nephi making swords like that of Laban, often required effort, learning, and achievement. In reading the scriptural record, we often glaze over these extreme events and accomplishments of both Nephi, and these early Nephites in all they accomplished without really considering what was involved.

As an example, it should also be kept in mind that sword making is a fine art. In some cultures, the sword maker’s work was as highly sought after as was Antonio Stradivari in 17^th and 18^th century Italy for his violins, violas, cello, and string-making abilities. What Nephi knew about swords is neither mentioned nor implied, however, since weapons are the mainstay of the young in any culture, it can probably be assumed Nephi would have known something about the properties of swords in his youth and early metallurgical days.
    As an example, before steel was known, swords were made primarily out of bronze, a combination of copper and tin, with the higher amount of tin (about 20%) made the sword much stronger, though brittle and subject to breaking, while the lesser amount of tin (about 10%) made the sword less likely to break, but softer and more likely to bend in battle--thus early swords were often wide to keep them from bending. 
    Swordsmiths in China favored the higher amount of tin with their copper, and the swordsmiths in Europe and Asia preferred lesser amounts of tin in their mixture—thus, in the early eras, Chinese swords were narrower, while the European and Asian swords were wider, even to using the Roman-style “leafblade” sword to keep them from bending. Bronze also meant the swords could be longer than copper swords, allowing a length of 20 to 35-inches, instead of the “short sword” known in the copper era. By the time of Lehi, swords had achieved lengths of two to four feet in length during the so-called Iron Age.

Using iron in the making of sword blades required a high melting point, which meant the smelting process limited primitive swordsmiths to the production of a porous mass of iron called a bloom, which was subsequently hammered out over the course of numerous heating and cooling cycles to produce the desired blade. In fact, though iron blades were not much better initially than bronze ones, iron ore was readily accessible in just about every region of the ancient world, and while the copper required in the production of bronze was also abundant, the simplicity in producing workable iron and the relative rarity of tin meant that iron swords could be produced on a much larger scale, and could therefore equip more impressive armies.
    Now we don’t know if Nephi ever made an iron blade, or worked with iron, bronze, or even copper, though living on a farm all his life and requiring knowledge of fixing and making farm equipment, very possibly involved both Lehi and his sons in the process. Yet, we see that Nephi was an adept student at both learning and making things with his hands. And the process of creating steel was developed quite by accident in the beginning anyway, for it was entirely unknown what gave steel its valuable properties, and for centuries the techniques for making high quality steel were closely held, almost alchemical, secrets.
Clearly, iron was its major component, but a myriad of other minor additions were found empirically, such as adding nickel, vanadium, chromium and manganese, with even more mysterious treatments evolved for cooling the red hot object to room temperature.
    Much in the way that tin mixed with copper produces a superior alloy in the form of bronze, adding carbon to iron in the proper quantities and with the correct technique gives rise to the vastly superior alloy of steel, though limiting dissolved gasses such as nitrogen and oxygen, was an issue to be solved.

One of the difficulties of adding carbon to iron through the techniques of quenching and carbonizing, which first is a process of hot iron is plunged into cold water, and the second is in taking heated iron and hammering it and folding it so carbon molecules from the charcoal was beaten into the iron, which is a decidedly difficult process to control. This led early swordsmiths working with iron to produce swords of vastly different qualities from one day to the next, and would have been a perfect classroom for Nephi, who may well have experimented in metallurgy on his father’s farm while making tools, repairing cinches, buckles, nails, clench bolts, etc.
    This, of course, is speculation, but the point is that metal work on ancient farms was both important and indispensable, and most farmers and farm hands learned rudimentary metal working. And like any youth, Nephi probably experimented with making himself a knife or two.
    This all leads to Nephi’s record in which he indicated his being impressed with Laban’s sword—he not only identified it as having pure gold, but fine, precious steel. How would he have known this had he not had some considerable experience working with metals?

As we pointed out earlier, Nephi would likely have known something about metallurgy working on his father’s farm and the likelihood of any young man from a farm around ancient Jerusalem in Nephi’s time knowing of such things. Yet, despite this, William J. Hamblin, Professor of History at BYU, in his article suggests quite the opposite. One can only wonder why.
    He begins by trying to lessen the accuracy of the words used and our understanding of them. As an example, he tries to make the point that there are linguistic layers involved in the Book of Mormon and that has an effect on the meaning of the word “steel” used. According to Hamblin, an historical Book of Mormon would have at least seven different linguistic layers:
1. Early nineteenth century American English;
2. Jacobean English of the KJV Bible;
3. Fourth century A.D. language of Moroni (Mormon 9.33-34);
4. Mesoamerican language(s);
5. Hebrew of the sixth century B.C.;

6. Egyptian of the sixth century B.C.;
7. Jaredite language.
    First of all, Hamblin meant Mormon 9:32-33) and Moroni’s comments are simply this: “And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record” (Mormon 9:32-33), which briefly means that the writers of the Book of Mormon spoke and wrote Hebrew, but used Reformed Egyptian to write on the Plates (which Joseph Smith translated). Since they were using a second language to write on the record, he cautioned that there might be some linguistic mistakes. However, though linguists love to point this out, they never add the following statement of Moroni when he qualifies any mistakes the writer has made with: “But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34 ).

That “means” of which Moroni spoke was Joseph Smith as translator, and the Holy Spirit as the guide to make sure the translation was correct. Therefore, much of the linguists’ beliefs in errors and complicated or complex meanings was handled or clarified by the Spirit in the process of the translation. To understand this “means,” Martin Harris provided a description of the manner of translating while he was transcribing the Prophet’s translation: “By aid of the Seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used’.” (A Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 129, emphasis added).
    To one and all, this should show that there would have been no linguistic errors, problems, or complexities to the translation of the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon other than the form of English then known and used by the Prophet and the amanuensis (with an understanding that Joseph’s English in this translation was that of the King James Bible English); however, every theorist who has to justify his beliefs and models when they do not agree with what is clearly written in the scriptural record must provide some explanation to support their difference from Mormon’s descriptions.
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part VIII,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part VI

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record. 

According to William Hamblin, BYU professor and former board member of FARMS, in an article entitled “Steel in the Book of Mormon,” on the ancientamerica.org Ancient America Foundation (AAF) site, states: “There are two major fallacies in discussions on this topic. First is the problem of the hermeneutics of hyper-skepticism (which means the disposition not to accept claims without proof—to be skeptical that a claim is true unless and until one has been provided reason to believe it). Applying the same hermeneutical standard to other ancient texts creates some obvious absurdities. Second is the semantic fallacy, which consists of arguing about the meaning of words rather than the reality the words are trying to depict.”
    He goes on to tell us that a single ancient reality can be defined in a number of different ways, with people often describing their perceptions of reality differently than we do, and that these fallacies are omnipresent among many anti-Mormons.
    He then goes on to describe the uses of the word “steel” in the scriptural record (which is mentioned five times). Then tells us: “The minimalist and tightest reading of this evidence is that Nephi had a steel weapon from the Near East. He attempted to imitate this weapon—whether in function, form, or material is unclear. His descendants apparently abandoned this technology by no later than 400 B.C. Based on a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon, there are no grounds for claiming-as anti-Mormons repeatedly do—that the Book of Mormon describes a massive steel industry with thousands of soldiers carrying steel swords in the New World.”

An artist’s view of Laban’s sword. It is doubtful the cross guards were so large, or the pommel was so big—these traits did not appear until the medieval period; but the blade would have been wide, as shown; thin blades rapier) were not known until around 1500, and the length shown would have been correct, since short swords were not known until Roman times

    First of all, Hamblin bases his first conclusion—that we are uncertain in what way Nephi replicated Laban’s steel sword, when Nephi wrote: “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” (2 Nephi 5:14)—the conclusion he draws is that “He attempted to imitate this weapon-whether in function, form, or material is unclear.”
    Now, there is so suggestion that Nephi attempted to do something and did not achieve the results he set out to achieve, i.e., the replicating of Laban’s sword. So what is it about Laban’s sword that Nephi was trying to replicate? Surely, he knew what a sword looked like before ever laying eyes on Laban’s weapon. Nephi tells us what interested him in the sword: “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” (1 Nephi 4:9, emphasis added).
    So Nephi saw three things about Laban’s sword that interested him:
1. Hilt of fine gold;
2. Workmanship exceedingly fine;
3. Blade of precious steel.
    Nothing more is said of the sword itself until Nephi later, after escaping from his older brothers and settling in the area they called the Land of Nephi, writes: “I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it, did make many swords” (2 Nephi 5:14).
    So from that we know:
1. Nephi made swords after the manner of Laban’s weapon;
2. He made many swords.

While we cannot determine how many is “many,” we can at least suggest he made a sufficient number that those who came with him and settled in this new land they called Nephi, that could wield a sword in their defense, was provided a sword. Whether that number is five, ten, twenty or thirty depends on how large the group of Lehi’s party arrived in the Land of Promise two or three years earlier, and whether or not Ishmael’s household (and that of Lehi’s) contained more than just family members, i.e., servants, workers, slaves, etc. Since that number cannot be determined from the scriptural record, we can only assume the number.
    The more important part of Nephi’s statement pertaining to the earlier question, is what was meant by “after the manner.”
    That phrase means “the way in which a thing is done,” “the same way,” “according to,” “in this way,” In Hebrew, it carries another meaning: “Exactly,” or “same.”
    Thus, we can accurately suggest that the meaning of Nephi’s statement was that he made many swords “exactly like Laban’s sword, made it in the same way Laban’s sword was made, and according to its dimensions, shape, heft, weight and balance—or as close as he could do so. The point is, that anyone who wields a sword can tell immediately how it feels in terms of being able to use it easily, quickly, and with force. Therefore, the weight and size of the weapon would be foremost in mind, along with the hardness of the metal so it could be used to strike objects and not be adversely affected. 

Another factor, and critically important is the balance of the sword. While this depends on the sword to some degree, typically the balance point is a few inches above the hilt or guard
the correct balance point of a sword does depend on the sword, but is generally a few inches above the hilt/cross guard. At this point the length of the blade should be equal weight with the handle and guard so the swordsman effectively has a pivot point on the sword just above the hand, which allows for even, fluid movements in both attack and defense. If the weight is too far forward one would be quite slow in bringing the point back up in defense, or be uncontrolled in a counter attack—too much weight in the hilt, and the forte (upper half of the blade) become weak and one would find it hard to push their opponent’s blade around. Whether or not Nephi knew this is unknown, but once hefting a well-made sword, the balance becomes obvious.
    It should also be kept in mind that when making something for fun or for show, the interest is not the same as making something that your life will depend on. Nephi would have put a great deal of perfection into his efforts, since their very lives and existence would probably depend upon those efforts. This is born out when he said, “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” (2 Nephi 5:14). After all, you don’t cut corners when your own life and that of your family rests upon your efforts.

Therefore, we can, with certainty assume that Nephi made swords that were, in every utilitarian manner, as identical to Laban’s sword as he could possibly make them. For Hamblin to say, “He attempted to imitate this weapon—whether in function, form, or material is unclear” has little meaning, and certainly should not cast any doubt on both Nephi’s effort and his success. His life depended on what he made and how he made it. Therefore, it seems certain he made the swords to have the same function, the same form, the same material, balance and weight.
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part VII,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part V

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record.
    In one of many attempts to downgrade the actual meaning of the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon, we find one Mesoamericanist writing about the “actual” meaning of two different statements, one by Nephi and one by his grand-nephew, Jarom, when they give lists of things common to the people of their day:

• Nephi: “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel”
• Jarom: “wood, …iron and copper, and brass and steel”
    Claiming that these two texts are what is called a “literary topos,” which is a term from Ancient Greek, meaning “common place.” (plural “literary topoi). In Latin locus (from locus communis), referred in the context of classical Greek rhetoric to a standardized method of constructing or treating an argument, which is  to loosely say, “a stylized literary description which repeats the same ideas, events, or items in a standardized way in the same order and form.”
    In fact, the use of literary topoi is a fairly common ancient literary device found extensively in the Book of Mormon (and, incidentally, an evidence for the antiquity of the text). However, scholars are often skeptical about the actuality behind a literary topos; it is often unclear if it is merely a literary device or is intended to describe specific unique circumstances.
    So, let’s take a look at what Nephi writes and why he is writing it. He had recently built a ship, the single, driving force in all of the Lehi party that wanted to build a ship. He receives instruction as to how to build it, very specific plans in fact, directly from the Lord—that is, it was 1) not built after the manner of men; 2) it was built specifically after the manner which the Lord showed him; 3) they worked timbers of curious workmanship; and 4) the Lord showed Nephi from time to time after what manner he would work the timbers. Therefore, we can justly determine that Nephi learned a great deal about building, working wood, smelting ore to make tools, building and working a bellows to heat the fire, and whatever other materials he was required to use to build and finish the ship the Lord showed him, step-by-step, how to build.
    It would also seem, that Nephi tells us this for the obvious reason that the Lord was the instrument of knowledge behind his doing something he had never done before, to show us, his future readers, what happens when we trust in the Lord. In addition, he is showing us how he could build a ship to withstand the tremendous pressures, pounding and test of sailing across a very wide ocean—the great deep—where the flimsy, coastal vessels in his day could never have ventured.
    Consequently, one would think that he would be very accurate in this.
    Next, Nephi, after escaping from his older brothers and the sons of Ishmael, who sought his death, is faced with building a city and a special temple (the Hebrews were very careful not to commit sin by constructing temples that were not approved by the Lord—the temple built after the exile ran into considerable difficulty and objection by those left behind in Jerusalem, but was eventually finished). 

The very important detail that went into the exactness of the construction so that the Jews could reinstitute the sacrificial rituals known as the korbanot (korban, qorban, corban, chubn), kosher animal sacrifice as described and commanded in the Torah, has filled numerous volumes of description, but the point is that it was an exact rendition of God’s temple requirements. In Nephi’s time, any temple built away from Jerusalem would have had to have permission from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem—without that possibility, it would still have to be built along the lines of the accepted Temple requirements. For Nephi to have built a temple requiring such exactness out of perishable wood simply would not have happened, nor would he have skimped on any part of the construction that was within his power to accomplish. Such temples take years to build and would have to be built in exactness as much as humanly possible.
    Understanding that, then we can comprehend why Nephi takes a moment to explain that while he had the knowledge from the Lord how to build with numerous mediums and materials, he then taught these skills and knowledge to his people. Therefore, his list would not have been something copied from something else, or a litany of typical or suggestive items, but one of exactness.

That is, we should accept Nephi’s word here that what he taught his people to do was an exact list of materials and skills, i.e., “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” (2 Nephi 5:15). This was not a literary statement, or topos, but an exact list of items involved that he wanted his future reader to understand so they would know that these skills were used on the building of the temple in the City of Nephi. Otherwise, how could he claim to have 1) built an acceptable temple to God for Hebrew people, and 2) not violated his trust in living the Law of Moses and obeying God’s laws.
    He even tells us that in building this temple, he “did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine” (2 Nephi 5:16).
    In this case, he didn’t have all the same types of materials, such as Cedars of Lebanon, which were used extensively throughout Solomon’s Temple, mostly for ceiling beams to support upper floors, and for wood paneling of the stone walls (which were then overlaid with gold). He also didn’t have “so many of the precious things” Solomon had, such as the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant, nor perhaps the skilled craftsmen to sculpt the two Cherubim of olive wood, each 10-cubits high, with each wing five cubits wide that, combined, stretched from wall to wall. 

Even Solomon’s temple was not large, though it had three rooms: a porch, the main room of worship, and the Holy of Holies where the Ark was kept, with a storehouse that surrounded three sides of the Temple. 
    Somewhere along the line, it would behoove Mesoamerican theorists, in their haste to make everything, even scripture, bend to their personal views, to realize that Nephi was a devout servant of the Lord, as well as very knowledgeable of Hebrew and Jewish laws, rules and regulations, that he would have followed all of God’s instructions and protocols. His temple would have been as exact and precise as he could possibly have made it in order for the Lord to have accepted it and the rituals and ordinances that would have then been conducted there.
    A point is also made by this same theorist that “Significantly, there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C.,” as though that is, again, significant since there is no reference to building after that time in exact detail. One can also say there is no mention of cement in the entire Book of Mormon except for the four instances in Helaman 3:7,9,11). Does that mean they never again used cement? It should be common sense that once knowing steel, a civilization, barring an overwhelming disaster, would not go back to using iron, brass or copper when they knew how to make steel—which is not a complicated metallurgical process.
    Another similar type statement made is: “Note, also, that although Jarom mentions a number of “weapons of war,” this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes “arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin.” If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?”
    It is rather humorous to ask such a question when Sorenson claims the Nephites used obsidian, a glass type of rock that supposedly they used as a blade inserted in a wooden “sword.” We are not suggesting that might not have been a weapon—but obsidian, glass or rock is not mentioned in connection with such a type of weapon. So on the one hand, though an item is not mentioned, the scholars claim it was used, and on the other hand, because an item is not mentioned (on one list but on numerous others), it must not have existed beyond that point.
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part VI,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part IV

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. Also continuing with the comments of John L. Sorenson, the so-called guru of Book of Mormon Land of Promise geography, that are meant to lessen and even question the meaning of the use of metal terminology in the scriptural record.    Sorenson in  his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, states (p281) “Utility [of using metals and building mediums] soon took second place [as] nephite concednr with ores and metals a  bit later had come to be with their ‘precious” quality (Jacob 1:16; 2:12). Only once thereafter about 400 B.C., was utilitarian metalworking suggested (Jarom 1:8) where tillage tools and weapons are mentioned.”

 Response: The interesting thing about Sorenson is that when it suits him to deny anything not mentioned in the scriptural record, like claiming the statement of “precious things” eliminates anything utilitarian being accomplished with their metallurgy, he does—but when it comes to claiming thousands upon thousands of other people in the Land of Promise interacting with Lamanites when no other people are ever mentioned or implied, or Jaredites surviving the final war of annihilation that Ether tells us took place to claim that Jaredites interacted with Mulekites and Nephites, he adds these without a qualm.
    So let us look at his claim about metallurgy and overall building mediums Nephi taught his people disappearing between Nephi’s time and that of his brother Jacob’s time, by considering his references.
    Jacob 1:16: “Yea, and they also began to search much gold and silver, and began to be lifted up somewhat in pride.” Obviously, this has to do with Jacob’s overall attitude at the time of the second king after the death of Nephi, that the Nephites “began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.”
    Jacob then goes on to claim that the wicked Nephites began to “search for much gold and silver” and that they began “to be lifted up somewhat in pride.” This is not about the use of metals or metallurgy, but about people augmenting their level ways with searches for those things that made them become prideful.
    Does anyone think that Sorenson does not understand that? After all the reading is quite simple at this point. And it is made even clearer in the next verse, which states: “Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord” (Jacob 1:17). He then goes on to preach to the people, as it states: “The words which Jacob, the brother of Nephi, spake unto the people of Nephi, after the death of Nephi:” (Jacob 2:1).
    The second verse Sorenson referenced is:
    Jacob 2:12): “And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.”

Again, still preaching to the Nephites, Jacob is calling attention to the fact that the more wicked part of the people are spending too much of their time searching for wealth that, as he said earlier, lifts them up with pride. In fact, in the next verse, he makes the problem quite clear: “and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they” (Jacob 1:13).
    Now does anyone think that Sorenson really believes that these two passages have anything to do with the lack of utilitarian use of metals or other building mediums taught them by Nephi?
    Sorenson’s third reference is:
    Jarom, Nephi’s grand-nephew, and Jacob’s grandson, who states: “And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war -- yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war” (Jarom 1:8).
    Sorenson, in his earlier statement above, said: “utilitarian metalworking suggested [by Jarom] where tillage tools and weapons are mentioned,” but he forget to mention that the Nephites were involved “in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery” which is a utilitarian statement. 

Food, Shelter and Clothing would have been the first items of importance

After all, the Nephites in two generations since arriving at this virgin land, where man had not lived since the Flood (Ether 13:1), would have been heavily involved in building homes, expanding crops and fields, planting and harvesting, and not only building a temple, but also in building other public buildings required by a growing society. They were not just tilling ground and making weapons, and as an anthropologist, Sorenson would know this!
    Yet, he still tries to lessen those normal and natural efforts in order to support his thesis that the Nephites might not have been so heavily involved in such metallurgy since none has been found in Mesoamerican before 900 A.D.
    He adds: “From that point on [Jarom] in the Nephite history, every reference to metals states or implies that they were strictly previous—a source of wealth. In fact, during the final400 years of the Nephite account even gold and silver , the only metals mentioned at all, are noted but four times” (p281-281).
    Well, let’s consider what is and is not mentioned.

    First of all, several houses are mentioned in the scriptural record. After eliminating usages like the “house of Israel,” “house of Jacob,” etc., and houses in the Old World, such as Lehi and Ishmael’s houses, but centering on people’s individual houses, there are 34 (my, their, his, etc.) houses; 9 other people’s house; 2 king’s house; 1 housetop; 1 neighbor’s house, 1 home, 5 “house to house,” and 3 houses of cement—for a total of 56 separate house or houses mentioned. In only three cases, i.e., the houses of cement, and that is described for a purpose to cover the idea of ships and shipping of timber, there is not a single hint as to what the houses are made of, whether wood, rock, stone, dirt, brick, mud, or whatever. Does anyone find a rationale behind that omission?

 In addition, there are 20 uses of the word “bow” referring to a weapon. One is described made of steel, one of wood (when Nephi has to make one on the trail). In the other 18 uses, we have no idea whether these are wood, metal, or some other material. Is this an omission? Can we claim some of those bows were made of metal? Fine steel? Bamboo? Laminated wood? Compound (which date to 2200 BC)? Animal horn? Bone? Or was it made of Elm? Maple? Cedar? Bubinga?
    The point is, we don’t know, the scriptural record does not say, and we cannot speculate or offer an opinion unless so stated. Yet, Sorenson wants to tell us because the scriptural record doesn’t specifically tell us something, that we can use that to determine a meaning that is not otherwise implied or suggested.
    The point is, no metal artifacts have been found of any kind in Mesoamerica before 900 A.D., but numerous metal artifacts have been found in Andean Peru/Ecuador dating to as early as 1900 B.C. 
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 B.C. – Part V,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part III

Continuing from the previous posts regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is, when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. It should also be remembered, that when talking about metallurgy, we are not talking about a minor issue, but one of the greatest importance, and one mentioned time and again within the pages of the scriptural record by numerous ancient prophets.

John L. Sorenson, in his book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, writes (p278) “The earliest piece so far probably dates back to around the first century B.C. It is a bit of copper sheathing found on top of an altar at Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico.” However, a search of his reference and allied articles turns up no such piece, yet there is singular mentions of copper, such as: copper rattles found in Mexico dated to the Post-classic period, which is after 1000 A.D. (Robert Wane Hope, Ten Years Of Middle American Archaeology,  Annotated Bibliography And News Summary, University of Connecticut, 1948-1957). Also, a sheet of copper, from a pre-classic (1000 B.C. to 250 A.D.) tomb in Guatemala (reference John L. Sorenson, "Preclassic Metal?" American Antiquity 20, 1954), and also along with pottery, alabaster, and copper, from a mound a few miles from Ixtlán del Río on the national highway to Tepic (no date given, but possibly 1946, and possibly by E. W. Gifford). However, none of these, except for the later period rattles, indicate metallurgy or the working of metal, i.e., “sheathing” is a casing or covering; and a sheet of copper—none of which suggests even hammered copper, let alone metallurgy. Nor in Gifford’s 1950 extensive report “University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol 43, No2, have a single mention of copper, and nothing about metals in connection with metallurgy.
    Sorenson uses as his reference for his view that metal or copper specimens have been found in Mesoamerica, to his own work: John L. Sorenson, "A Reconsideration of Early Metal in Mesoamerica," Katunob 9 (March 1976, pp1-18), then in searching that reference, he quotes: “There have proved to be several hundred such specimens dating from 400 B.C. to AD 900, 153 of which were excavated by professional archaeologists,” referencing, you guessed it, his own work of: John L. Sorenson, Metals and Metallurgy Relating to the book of Moron Text, FARMS, Provo, 1992.
    In another case where Sorenson references himself, he states in his Open Letter of Michael Coe in 2012, “At one point in Jaredite history the record says that they made “swords out of steel.” This is clearly an unexplained anomaly.

Where is the anomaly? Mormon tells us the Jaredites made swords of steel. Steel is iron mixed with carbon and is malleable, relatively easily formed and a versatile material. Is it unexpected to think that the Jaredites, who were familiar with the Tower of Babel and the metallurgy known to the ancient Babylonians? They built a tower meant to reach the heavens and of them the Lord said, “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6)
    However, Sorenson goes on to add parenthetically, “However, note that the term that is read ‘steel’ in the King James Bible is currently translated by experts as ”bronze”),” he then quotes his own work: John L. Sorenson, “Steel in Early Metallurgy,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 15/2 (2006): 109-109.
    It is really amazing that Sorenson is not only his own often quoted reference, but is almost the only referenced source regarding Book of Mormon metallurgy in Mesoamerica. As an example, in an article: “Metals and Weapons in the Book of Mormon: Mormon Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” in one article Sorenson is referenced 27 times as the source material for information regarding metals in Mesoamerica.
    Since Sorenson is neither a metallurgist, nor one who has searched ancient sites and digs looking for artifacts and evidence of metal in the ancient Americas, there is no possible way he should be the source material for “proof” that metallurgy existed in the ancient Americas. Such ludicrous sourcing and citing is neither scholarly nor helpful, and it certainly is not suggestive to critics of the Church and the Book of Mormon that any written material with such referencing is either accurate or honest.
    In factual examples, under the heading of: “Phase 1: AD 600 - 1200/1300,” an article states: “West Mexican smiths worked primarily in copper during the initial period, with some low-arsenic alloys, as well as occasional employment of silver and gold. Lost-wax cast bells were introduced from lower Central America and Colombia during this phase, along with several classes of cold-worked ornaments and hand tools, such as needles and tweezers. The prototypes for these small, often utilitarian items appear rooted in southern Ecuador and northern Peru (Dorothy Hosler, “Sound, color and meaning in the metallurgy of Ancient West Mexico,” World Archaeology 27, 1995, pp100-115). Small copper rings, generally found in burial contexts, are also common to Ecuador and Western Mexico and are abundant during this phase.

Lost Wax: LtoR: Mold, Lost Wax, and Final product

    Excavated assemblages from the initial phase indicate that lost-wax cast bells—also called "investment casting", "precision casting", or cire perdue in French, is the process by which a duplicate metal sculpture, often silver, gold, brass or bronze, is cast from an original sculpture—also occupied a substantial portion of West Mexican artisans' efforts. Unlike similar bells recovered from coastal Ecuador, West Mexican bells were cast, rather than worked, metal. Typically composed of a smooth, suspended metal shell encasing an interior clapper, the West Mexican bells were generally fashioned from copper alloys and bore particular resemblance to bells made in Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica.
    In the first of this series, we showed a map of where West Mexico is located. Below is a map you will never ever see on any Mesoamerican site showing West Mexico overlaid on a map of Mexico and then compared with Sorenson’s (and other Mesoamericanists’) Land of Promise map.

As can easily be seen, West Mexico, where the earliest artifacts of metallurgy have been found and all Mesoamericanists, including Sorenson, refer to when discussing Mesoamerican metallurgy, was started. There is question between when it was started, but the point of the map is to show it is not even within the Mesoamericanists’ Land of Promise!

    In language that is hedged by Sorenson so as to cause the reader to feel that the scriptural record as it stands is not self-explanatory and that the reader needs Sorenson to guide him through the complexities of Mormon’s meanings, Sorenson writes (p280): “Let’s now look very carefully at some statements about metals in the Nephite volume But we must not let our preconceptions about the text stand in the way of gaining understanding.” He then goes on to outline Nephi’s history of metallurgy, suggesting that “Nephi could have known the basics of the processes, but he probably did not control the full repertoire of skills” (p281), then quotes: “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” (2 Nephi 5:15), then adds: 
    “This is an impressive list. Unfortunately, the language leaves us uncertain what the Nephites did with these substances. We could infer that practical as well as decorative use was made of some of these (regarding precious things). If so utility soon took second place.”
    First of all, “utility” is defined as “state of being useful or beneficial. ”It should be kept in mind the context in which Nephi is writing. They just migrated to a new, virgin area, escaping from his older brothers and the sons of Ishmael who threatened his life. So he starts out by making “many swords” (2 Nephi 5:14), following that, they built a temple (2 Nephi 5:16), and Nephi says he “did cause my people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands” (2 Nephi 5:17). And in the very verse Sorenson quoted, but left out, the first part, Nephi says, “I did teach my people to build buildings…” (2 Nephi 5:15).
    Now, how on earth can any intelligent being not know that 1) Nephi taught his people to build buildings, and 2) he taught his people to work in several different and unrelated mediums, and then conclude that “Unfortunately, the language leaves us uncertain what the Nephites did with these substances” and then add that “utility soon took second place.”
    Really?
    What is more utilitarian (useful and beneficial) than building buildings and making weapons for defense?
    This is the person, and type of thinking and writing, we should use as a source material to say that metallurgy existed in Mesoamerica prior to when all the experts claim it did not?
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 B.C. – Part IV,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the importance that the lack of metallurgy in Mesoamerica is when considering where the Land of Promise truly was located. It should also be remembered, that when talking about metallurgy, we are not talking about a minor issue, but one of the greatest importance, and one mentioned time and again within the pages of the scriptural record by numerous ancient prophets. 

The fact that one location (Andean South America) has evidence of great metallurgical ability from early B.C. times and Mesoamerica has none at all until around 600 to 800 B.C. (200 to 400 years after the demise of the Nephites), that should be considered critically important. However, Mesoamerican theorists simply shrug it off, with John L. Sorenson claiming in his book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p278, “In 1954 I published two articles that presented evidence for the existence of metal object ts from Mesoamerican archaeological sites well before the accepted date of A.D. 900,” he then gives a reference. In looking up that reference, we find “The emergence of metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican occurred relative late in the region’s history, with distinctive works of metal apparent in West Mexico by roughly AD 800, and perhaps as early as AD 600,” with that reference none other than Dorothy Hosler (“Ancient West Mexican Metallurgy: South and Central American Origins and West Mexican Transformations,” American Anthropologist 90, 1988, pp832-855) the very same person we have been quoting from in all our works on metallurgy and the most accepted expert in the field for the entire area of the Americas.
    Sorenson, however, goes on to say, “Nearly twenty years later I updated the information and included much more data. Since then additional facts have come out in support of the idea that metal use was much earlier in America than had been thought. One basic lesson we learn from this experience is that the experts were quite wrong. Metals were indeed in use in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica.” As a reference, Sorenson uses an American Anthropologist article. While Sorenson does not state what facts have come out, they take two forms: 1) Statements about metallurgy found in the Americas, which we quote here from the referenced article: “Furthermore, in 1998, a discovery in Peru pushed the earliest date of hammered metal back to as early as 1400 B.C., and by 1000 B.C., current information clearly indicates that by 1000 B.C. the most advanced metallurgy was being practiced in the Cauca Valley of Columbia” (Source: Archaeology (Nov/Dec 1985, 81). There is also quotes in the reference that: “Metallurgy was known in Peru from 1900 B.C., and in Ecuador via trade by 1000 B.C.”

Obviously, what Sorenson fails to tell his readers is that those two examples were in South America, 1950 miles or more from Mesoamerica.
    Just a minor detail!
    However, he does go on to write: “Since Mesoamerica is known to have had trade relations with parts of the continent that produced metals, and because metal artifacts dating prior to A.D. 900 have been found in Mesoamerica, it seems reasonable to assume that at least some Mesoamericans knew something about metallurgy.” I wonder if that could be equivalent to the U.S. has nuclear weapons, heavy water, plutonium, uranium-238, a reactor to create uranium-239, and bring about a chain reaction, etc., and because we are a trade partner with Mexico, that they, too, have nuclear weapons. Doubtful, right? But they certainly know the words of such. Which leads us to the second form 2) which is linguistic. Sorenson claims that words for “metal” were known to the ancient Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean language group, the latter supposedly the language of the Olmecs. In fact, one of his references shows that Proto-Tzeital-Tzotzil used a term for metal around 500 A.D., Proto-Mixtecan had a word in 1000 B.C., and Proto-Mexe-Zoquean in 1500 B.C., and Huastecan as early as 2200 B.C.
    Since linguistics is a matter of interpretation, we will never know if these groups had a word that really meant “metal” as we know the term. It is also interesting that Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the National Medal of Science, discusses some of the issues of cultural diffusion in his Pulitzer Prize book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (W.W.Norton & Co, New York, 1999)—a New York Times Bestseller—states: “There is simply no historical evidence that an innovation that exists in one place will necessarily carry over to a new location. In fact, there are places where important innovations used to exist and were lost. That tells us that we must not make unwarranted assumptions about the automatic transfer of [information and technology].”

So much for Sorenson’s idea that contact between Ecuador and Mesoamerica (if such existed during Nephite times and we have no proof that it did), would have resulted in Mesoamerica acquiring metallurgy. But even if they did, they must not have ever made anything in metal, processed the ore or developed even limited cold hammering since not a single metal artifact has ever been found in the entire land of Mesoamerica—an area over 400,000-square miles (about the size of Texas and California combined)—which has had numerous digs by archaeologists looking for metal artifacts for more than half a century, and finding none!
    However, Sorenson is undaunted with the lack of metallurgy findings in Mesoamerica. As he states in his book (p279), “When all current information us considered, it appears that archaeologists should now be asking a new questions. The old query was, ‘why was there no metal in early Mesoamerica?’ Now it ought to become, ‘why do we recover so little evidence of the metallurgical skill that was surely there?’” The problem with Sorenson and other Mesoamericanists, in light of not finding any metallurgy in Mesoamerica, insist that it was there, even when the foremost metallurgist of ancient American metallurgy claims it did not exist before 900 A.D., or possibly 800 A.D.?
    It is interesting that Mesoamericanists, so unwilling to accept the findings of everyone who has studied metallurgy in the ancient Americas (other than BYU, FARMS, or LDS archaeologists), claiming they are all wrong and they are asking the wrong questions. The original question ought to be the issue: “Why was there no metal in early Mesoamerica?” The obvious answer is because there wasn’t any! However, that does not fit well with all these people who have been promoting Mesoamerica for two generations, nor would such knowledge that Mesoamerica simply does not fit the scriptural record and all its descriptions to their careers, projects, standing in the archaeological community, future funding, and furthering of their tours, books, and speaking assignments.

It is hard to have a following when the facts simply are against your viewpoint and “professional” claims. However, sooner or later, Mesoamericanists are going to have to come to grips with the facts that exist. As an example, Sorenson’s book was published in 1985—32 years ago! At that time there had been no factual artifacts or factual proof of metallurgy in Mesoamerica—only a possible linguistic reference to metal dating, according to Sorenson, back to 1000 B.C. Now, 32 years later, there still hasn’t been any metal artifacts found, any physical evidence of metallurgy of any kind, yet evidences of ancient metallurgy have been found all over Andean Peru, even though there has been far less archaeological work done there to find it than in Mesoamerica.
    Just because Sorenson and others who have staked their careers on Mesoamerica claim there was metallurgy in that region during Nephite times. What do they base their opinions on? Only linguistics. As an example, Sorenson quotes Dudley T. Easby, Jr., claimed to be one of the most respected experts on ancient American metal technology, wrote in 1960: “The majority of scholars, relying on circumstantial evidence, believe that fine metallurgy in ancient Mexico was limited to a few centuries before the arrival of the Spaniards. Perhaps they are right, but it seems to be that their theory leaves much to be explained.” In looking up Sorenson’s reference, we find that Earle R. Caley and Dudley T. Easby, Jr., cite: “The smelting of sulfide ores of copper in preconquest Peru, American Antiquity, vol 25, no1, 1959, pp59-65). Easby also has concluded the use of metal among the Aztecs based on examining art works showing pre-Columbian scenes (Pre-hispanic Metallurgy and Metalworing in then New World,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,109, 1963, pp89-98); also Easby and Leslie Aitcheson, A History of Metals, 2 vols, Macdonald & Evans, London, 1960, Vol 2 pp363-367).

The point is, none of this effort on the part of Mesoamerican metallurgists has produced a single metal artifact that dates earlier than 900 A.D. Even their claim to 600 B.C., is based on assumptive dialogue, and to B.C. times based on linguistic interpretation—not artifacts like are found in Andean South America. Even Sorenson agrees that metallurgy in the Americas was found in South America long before anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 B.C. – Part III,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)

Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part I

In Jaredite times the working of iron and other metals was practiced from an early date, “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” (Ether 10:23). As early as 588 B.C., or so, the Nephites were involved in metallurgy, “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“ (2 Nephi 5:15). In fact, they were still digging up precious metals in 400 B.C. (Jarom 1:8) and in 25 B.C. (Helaman 6:9). 
    Metallurgy was an important part of the Jaredite Empire as well as the Nephite Nation, and practiced from the time of Nephi, who taught his people how to use iron, steel, and metallurgy in general (2 Nephi 5:15).
    So for those whose beliefs and models are founded in Mesoamerica, it might come as a shock to them that there has never been any sign of metallurgy found, uncovered, or even suggested in the entire time Mesoamerican archaeology has been conducted in Central America by both LDS and non-member archaeologists prior to 600 A.D.

According to metallurgists who have studied Mesoamerica, metallurgy began in West Mexico after 600 A.D.; this is an area Sorenson, Allen, et al., do not even include in their Land of Promise maps other than on the extreme periphery

    According to those who have studied this field in Mesoamerica, they claim that “The emergence of metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica occurred relatively late in the region's history, with distinctive works of metal apparent in West Mexico by roughly AD 800, and perhaps as early as AD 600” (Dorothy Hosler, Ancient West Mexican Metallurgy: South and Central American Origins and West Mexican Transformations, American Anthropologist 90, 1988, pp832-855; also 1995). In fact, metallurgy was restricted early on to just Western Mexico, an area that would fall into Mesoamerica's Land Northward, and only worked in copper with some low-arsenic alloys (David M. Pendergast, Metal Artifacts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica, American Antiquity 27, 1962, pp520-545).
    However, iron and metallurgy was well known in the Mesopotamia area from a very early date, certainly the Jaredites would have been familiar with it as the scriptural record indicates. In Chaldaea and Assyria the initial use of iron reaches far back, to perhaps 4000 B.C. One of the earliest smelted iron artifacts known is a dagger with a smelted iron blade and a gold handle found in a Hattic tomb in Anatolia, dating from before 2000 B.C. The widespread use of iron weapons which replaced bronze weapons rapidly disseminated throughout the Near East (southwest Asia)  by the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C.
    The Iron Age in the Ancient Near East is believed to have begun with the discovery of iron smelting and smithing techniques in Anatolias or the Caucasus and Balkans in the late 2nd millenium B.C.  (1300 BC).

Modern archaeological evidence identifies the start of iron production as taking place in Anatolia around 1200 B.C., though some contemporary archaeological evidence points to earlier dates. Around 3000 B.C., iron was a scarce and precious metal in the Near East, and between 1200 B.C. and 1000 B.C., diffusion in the understanding of iron metallurgy and utilization of iron objects was fast and far-flung. In the history or ferrous metallurgy, iron smelting—the extraction of usable metal from oxidized iron ores—is more difficult than tin and copper smelting. These other metals and their alloys can be cold-worked, or melted in simple pottery kilns and cast in molds; but smelted iron requires hot-working and can be melted only in specially designed furnaces.
    It is therefore not surprising that humans only mastered iron smelting after several millennia of bronze metallurgy. Yet they did so many hundreds of years before Lehi left Jerusalem and sailed to the Americas.
    Lack of archaeological evidence of iron production made it seem unlikely that it had begun earlier elsewhere, and the Iron Age was seen as a case of simple diffusion of a new and superior technology from an invention point in the Near East to other regions. It is now known that meteoric iron, or iron-nickel alloy, was used by various ancient peoples thousands of years before the Iron Age. Such iron, being in its native metallic state, required no smelting of ores. By the Middle Bronze Age, increasing numbers of smelted iron objects (distinguishable from meteoric iron by the lack of nickel in the product) appeared in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.
    Iron in its natural form is barely harder than bronze, and is not useful for tools unless combined with carbon to make steel. The percentage of carbon determines important characteristics of the final product: the more carbon, the harder the steel.

The systematic production and use of iron implements in Anatolia began around 2000 B.C., which would have made it available to the Middle East long before Lehi’s time and makes it clear that Nephi’s fine steel bow would have been within the time shown in the Book of Mormon.
    Professor Anthony Snodgrass suggests that a shortage of tin, as a part of the Bronze Age Collapse and trade disruptions in the Mediterranean around 1300 B.C., forced metalworkers to seek an alternative to bronze. As evidence, many bronze implements were recycled into weapons during this time, and more widespread use of iron led to improved steel-making technology at lower cost. Thus, even when tin became available again, iron was cheaper, stronger, and lighter, and forged iron implements superseded cast bronze tools permanently (Anthony M. Snodgrass, "Arms and Armour of the Greeks,” Thames & Hudson, London, 1966).
    Recent archaeological work has modified not only the above chronology, but also the causes of the transition from bronze to iron. New dates from India suggest that iron was being worked there as early as 1800 B,C,, and African sites are turning up dates as early as 1200 B.C., (Theodore Wertime and J. D. Muhly, eds. The Coming of the Age of Iron, New Haven, 1979), confounding the idea that there was a simple discovery and diffusion model.

An interesting fact that Celtic burial mounds, very similar to the eastern U.S. Hopewell and other burial mounds in North America, date to the northern European Iron Age as early as 8^th Century B.C., though such mounds are not found in the Mesopotamia-Middle East Iron Age period

    Increasingly, the Iron Age in Europe is being seen as a part of the Bronze Age collapse in the ancient Near East, in ancient Iran, and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages). In other regions of Europe, the Iron Age began in the 8th century B.C. in Central Europe and the 6th century B.C. in Northern Europe. The Near Eastern Iron Age is divided into two subsections, Iron I and Iron II. Iron I (1200–1000 B.C.) illustrates both continuity and discontinuity with the previous Late Bronze Age.
    There is no definitive cultural break between the 13th and 12th century B.C. throughout the entire region, although certain new features in the hill country, Transjordan, and coastal region may suggest the appearance of the Aramean and Sea People groups. There is evidence, however, that shows strong continuity with Bronze Age culture, although as one moves later into Iron I the culture begins to diverge more significantly from that of the late 2nd millennium.
    The point is, there is certainly enough significance in historical archaeology to show that iron and metallurgy were alive and well during the time of Nephi and long before, suggesting that Nephi, who taught his people how to use iron and metallurgy (2 Nephi 5:15) to such an extent that it would have been widely understood and practiced in the Land of Promise, and was from the Jaredites around 1500 B.C. to at least the Nephites, to around 350 A.D., giving plenty of room for such weapons and artifacts to have accumulated within the Jaredite and Nephite lands.

Ancient iron mine found in the Ingenio Valley of the Andes Mountains in Southern Peru, originally worked by the Nazca culture, and today called the Mina Primavera Mine

    The fact that such metallurgy has been found in abundance in Peru and the Andes of South America dating to Jaredite times and existing through Nephite times, suggests that this is a match with the scriptural record. It also should be understood that a lack of such artifacts found in Mesoamerica, especially since LDS archaeologists have been searching for metal there for more than half a century and found none, should suggest that Mesoamerica is not a match with the Book of Mormon scriptural record!
(See the next post, “Metallurgy Did Not Exist in Mesoamerica Prior to 600 A.D. – Part II,“ to see how far theorists go to try and bend the facts presented in the scriptural record to maintain their erroneous beliefs, paradigms and models)