Has Olmec Iron Been Found in Mexico?

[Anonymous]

Worked iron is occasionally found and appears to have been a trade good. See the articles Villa Taina de Boqueron, esp.Chalcatzingo, in Peter N. Peregrine, Encyclopedia of Prehistory (Vol. 3 Middle America) (2002) I don't buy the meteorite explanation for all iron; these articles don't suggest it.

Metallurgy was in use long before Columbus, but metal tools were not in widespread use. See the Central Mexico Postclassic, Ecuadorian Highlands articles in the same work. One of these articles puts the use of metallurgy at 250 A.D. (1250 B.P.). The article states that on this date, metallurgy was introduced to the Mexican highlands from South America, where metallurgy was already being employed. Beastie's comments in the next post about chronology are wrong.

The article Beastie cites (her own) was not peer reviewed. The work I cite was peer reviewed.

rcrocket

The post above(your own) was not peer reviewed either. What a dumbass observation. The citations she used were credible. Now lets check your sources.

First is "Villa Taina de Boqueron" in Encyclopedia of Prehistory (Middle America). The only mention of iron in the article is the following quote on P. 238.

"Villa Taina also posses a large number of zemis for a small midden site, suggesting considerable ceremonial or ritual activity. Iron objects, glass fragments, and potter including Delft, creamware, salt-glazed stoneware, and various pearl wares, dating from the late 18th century, are intermixed with protohistoric pottery.

The site is outside MesoAmerica. Plus the site dates to between 950-1450 A.D.

Ok now for Chalcatzingo. This is the quote relevant to your iron evidence. P. 143

"The identification of craft workshops for the production of obsidian, ceramic figurine, greenstone, and iron ore objects indicates the existence of specialilzed production locales in the site"

The sources listed for this information is Grove, David(1987) Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University of Texas Press. Grove identifies the specific iron ore used at Chalcatzingo as magnetite (iron ore) used as ornaments and polished for mirrors.

Ok now for your big evidence. Here is the quote in the Central Mexico Post Classic you used.

"A neolithic technology powered by human labor formed the basis of Postclassic economies. Although seaborne traders introduced metallurgy to West Mexico from South America initially around 1250 B.P. and about 750 B.P. bronzeworking was adopted, metal tools from West Mexico was never widespread use in Central Mexico."

Lets correct your first REALLY BIG ERROR. 1250 B.P. is 700 A.D. not 250 A.D. like you contend. So your source backs up whats clearly shown by the evidence that basic metallurgy began around 700 a.d., bronze working began around 1200 a.d. All this evidence you supposedly have confirms the exact same information Beastie provided in her article.

Either you are a complete bumbling idiot or you owe Beastie an apology for your dishonesty.


Phaedrus

[_rcrocket]

Exactly why should I care whether a site is within or without Mesoamerica? Really now; every general authority who has ever spoken on the subject has never subscribed to the Limited Geography Theory.

No comment upon my cite that that says that iron arrived from South America at 1250 B.P.?

1250 B.P. is, indeed, 700 A.D. On the other hand, it is significant to me that metallurgy arrived from South America in 700 A.D., and that iron items are found throughout pre-Columbian America.

I apologize for an arithmetical error and I apologize for the truth which is contrary to Beastie's statements. It matters not that you must descend to personal insult; I expect such.

I stand by my position that Beastie's cited material is not peer reviewed, but that my cited source has been.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

Thanks, Phaedrus, for providing clarification. Rcrocket is frustrating to deal with because he so rarely does more than throw out a reference - no citation, we're just supposed to take his word for it. What a "surprise" that the source does not say what he originally attributed to it.

I have read some sources that speculate on the introduction of metallurgy as early as 900 AD. I hadn't read 750 AD as far as I recall.

However, in his attempt to discredit me, crocket not only distorted his source, but also my words.

This is the question that I was asked:

Out of curiosity, around which time period did metallurgy become commonplace (or at least somewhat widespread)?

My answer:

Probably around 1200 AD.

(and even then we're talking about a pretty minimal use, mainly copper tools, certainly not steel swords or anything like it!)

The citation phraedrus provided actually supports my assertion.

Note, crocket, I was not answering a question about when metallurgy may have first been introduced. I was asked when it became commonplace. Your source obviously agrees with my statement.

[_truth dancer]

Hi rcrockett....

Did you even read Phaedrus' post?

Do you realize that your sources completely support the knowledge of scholars provided by Beastie in her article?

Have you nothing to say about this?

And the whole, "Beastie's article is not peer reviewed" is complete nonsense.

Her article is filled with quotes from the most well respected scholars in their field.


~dancer~

by the way... thanks for that great post Phaedrus! ;-)

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Exactly why should I care whether a site is within or without Mesoamerica? Really now; every general authority who has ever spoken on the subject has never subscribed to the Limited Geography Theory.

No comment upon my cite that that says that iron arrived from South America at 1250 B.P.?

Iron arriving? What are you talking about. I quoted the entire paragraph and it says nothing about iron. It says "seaborne traders introduced metallurgy". Do you have what you cited? Have you read it personally or are you relying on someone else's work? Oh and by the way if you read Beastie's link you'll see that she discusses South American metallurgy.

1250 B.P. is, indeed, 700 A.D. On the other hand, it is significant to me that metallurgy arrived from South America in 700 A.D., and that iron items are found throughout pre-Columbian America.

What iron items are you talking about? You cited four articles from your source and I quoted the relevant passage from each. If you mean "iron items found through pre-columbian" the magnetite stones that were polished then sure. Otherwise you'll have to show something more to back your assertions

I apologize for an arithmetical error and I apologize for the truth which is contrary to Beastie's statements. It matters not that you must descend to personal insult; I expect such.

I stand by my position that Beastie's cited material is not peer reviewed, but that my cited source has been.

Well it's a pretty basic error that completely moves your "evidence" from Book of Mormon times to outside Book of Mormon time. Second, my point was that you and Beastie both wrote something that wasn't "peer reviewed" but both used legitimate sources. The difference is that both your source and her source supports her argument not yours. But somehow you're oblivious to this fact.

I didn't descend into personal insults directly. I implied that either you got everything wrong unknowingly and therefore may be a bumbling idiot or you did so deliberately and were there intentionally dishonest and owe her an apology.


Phaedrus

[_The Dude]

I didn't descend into personal insults directly. I implied that either you got everything wrong unknowingly and therefore may be a bumbling idiot or you did so deliberately and were there intentionally dishonest and owe her an apology.

"Bumbling idiot" is a little harsh. I mean, even Charity isn't a bumbling idiot in my opinion, let alone Rob Rocket.

(I know Rob Rocket isn't the correct name but that's what I always think when I skim over the name -- it's stuck in my head for better or worse.)

[Anonymous]

"Bumbling idiot" is a little harsh. I mean, even Charity isn't a bumbling idiot in my opinion, let alone Rob Rocket.

(I know Rob Rocket isn't the correct name but that's what I always think when I skim over the name -- it's stuck in my head for better or worse.)

Actually I like Charity. It just seemed clear to me after taking the time to read each article that comprised the evidence proposed by the "rocket scientist" that every one was clearly not what he said. Maybe I was a bit harsh but after taking the time to find a book called Encyclopedia of Prehistory (Middle America), then read the 4 articles inside it to discover they had nothing to do with what he was supposing I got frustrated. Sometimes I'm not in a mood to suffer fools gladly.


Phaedrus

[_Scottie]

(I know Rob Rocket isn't the correct name but that's what I always think when I skim over the name -- it's stuck in my head for better or worse.)

LOL...I did this too. I read it as RC Rocket. I thought, "Boy, I didn't know they have remote controlled rockets! How cool! That must be this guys hobby."

[_rcrocket]

I stand by my use of these sources. I quote from or used them accurately.

[_beastie]

Of course bob sees no problem with how he uses sources.

This is just one more example, like this one, shared by scratch recently:

from bob's FARMs article on MMM:

As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

The real citation:

Feb, 23m 1877 to John D. Lee
Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd. I thank you for the same, before I know I have done all I knew how to do for your benefit. I am conscious of tfact that men of greater ability could have been secured to defend you, but I will insist that no man could have been found to would have been more truly devoted to your interests then I have been. I still claim that the law is on our side, that laying aside outside pressure and prejudice I would have been successful - but we may as well look at facts as they are. We have the prejudice of civilization to contend with - the united press of the nation opposed us, and no one was found who would speak a word of kindness in your behalf. Added to this we found the so-called Head of the Church furnishing evidence against you and the members all arrayed as willing tools under the leadership of Genl. Wells. Treachery was added to hatred and the whole people it appeared demanded a victim. Under such circumstances we could only fail in the Territorial courts - I am sorry that you were unable to raise the money to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States before I do think we could have reversed the case in the accord - But it is useless to speak of what might have been - it is existing facts that now demand attention - I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public. I wish you to forward to me your Journals such as you have I will use them & return of them to your family when I am done with them. I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began - giving a full statement of all the fax and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that he is if you have held anything back. In Justice to your self & to me - as well as your family “tell it all”. I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Walmart. W. Bishop

(bolded by scratch to show the portion bob omitted)
discussed here

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=3703

Bob has never conceded that he misused this source, either.