The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Macuahuitl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The maquahuitl (a name that was derived from the Nahuatl language) is a weapon shaped like a wooden sword. Its sides are embedded with prismatic blades made from obsidian, a volcanic glass stone frequently used for tool making by the Aztec and other pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures. It was similar to a large wooden club with cuts in the side to hold the sharpened obsidian.

Okay, that’s a valid point. But Wikipedia goes on to describe the Macuahuitl as “…being similar to a large wooden club…” and adds that it “…lacks a true European equivalent.” Conversely, the Wikipedia entry for sword describes nothing that even remotely resembles the Macuahuitl. The same goes for the definition of sword in the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary.

So what about the Book of Mormon? Does it describe the sword in terms that resemble the macuahuitl? I doubt it. In the Book of Mormon, swords generally have steel blades, points for thrusting, and hilts. When exposed to the elements, they rust. In the Book of Mormon, swords seem to follow the European model.

Calling a macuahuitl a sword is like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Calling it wooden sword is just silly.

[_madeleine]

I suppose one might try to fault DCP for not calling it a "wooden sword embedded with obsidian."

WW

Humans were making tools using stone knapping techniques long before the Aztecs. It's a giant irrational leap to compare a stone-age technique and what is produced by this technique, to steel and the techniques used to make weapons of steel.

There is also the fact that once a civilization has progressed to more modern methods of making weapons, the stone-age knowledge is lost. There is a very low probability that a civilization would take on metallurgy, retain the knowledge for making stone weapons, and then return to using stone-age technology. It has never happened with any civilization.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Calling a macuahuitl a sword is like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Calling it wooden sword is just silly.

Well, that's what the collected contemporaneous statements in Prescott's work calls them. Seems the conquistadors were pretty stupid.

[_Themis]

Well, that's what the collected contemporaneous statements in Prescott's work calls them. Seems the conquistadors were pretty stupid.

Who cares. The Book of Mormon mentions metal swords, and metal use from the beginning and other time periods. It's a silly apologetic, and should make apologists realize why many believing members don't buy it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well, that's what the collected contemporaneous statements in Prescott's work calls them. Seems the conquistadors were pretty stupid.

Who cares. The Book of Mormon mentions metal swords, and metal use from the beginning and other time periods. It's a silly apologetic, and should make apologists realize why many believing members don't buy it.

Well, I think an inadequate amount of review has been had of native American metallurgy. John Heywood, an early Tennessee archaeologist (and later Supreme Court justice) documents the finds of metal swords in mounds.

[_Themis]

Well, I think an inadequate amount of review has been had of native American metallurgy. John Heywood, an early Tennessee archaeologist (and later Supreme Court justice) documents the finds of metal swords in mounds.

CFR.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well, I think an inadequate amount of review has been had of native American metallurgy. John Heywood, an early Tennessee archaeologist (and later Supreme Court justice) documents the finds of metal swords in mounds.

CFR.

haywood site:mormondiscussions.com

Haywood and Heywood; I don't which spelling is correct but use that search I just gave you.

Plus there's been all those recent finds about hardened bronze and copper mines in the Great Lakes area.

[_Themis]

haywood site:mormondiscussions.com

Haywood and Heywood; I don't which spelling is correct but use that search I just gave you.

Plus there's been all those recent finds about hardened bronze and copper mines in the Great Lakes area.

This doesn't even begin to show any evidence to satisfy the CFR, and the thread in question I participated in. Most people would be embarrassed to show some of the things you said in that thread. We see no evidence at all here. Now maybe you could show what he actually says, not that it would establish good evidence for it. For one we don't know what he saw or if he saw anything. We don't have any metal swords or hilts to look at and date, and none have been found any where else. You really don't give anyone anything to really go on here.

[_madeleine]

Calling a macuahuitl a sword is like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Calling it wooden sword is just silly.

Well, that's what the collected contemporaneous statements in Prescott's work calls them. Seems the conquistadors were pretty stupid.

Not stupid, but they weren't historians or anthropologists. They were, for the most part, mercenaries, who had served in the Spanish Crusades against the Moors. With the ending of those hundred years wars, they were looking for work. A few priests and friars traveled with them to give their expeditions "holy credence".

While their accounts are all we have of the civilizations they encountered, they were biased in how they recorded what they "found"...very Euro-Christian-centric. Thus, the naming of objects they had never encountered using familiar terms and words. But, it would be foolish to think a Spanish Conquistador didn't know the difference between a sword and a macuahuitl.

[_Buffalo]

haywood site:mormondiscussions.com

Haywood and Heywood; I don't which spelling is correct but use that search I just gave you.

Plus there's been all those recent finds about hardened bronze and copper mines in the Great Lakes area.

Rodney Meldrum was right!