Re: Iron use: 4000BC

On 2007-08-22, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx <mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:09 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-08-22, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx <mc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 21, 12:58 am, Wakboth <Wakboth2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 elo, 07:58, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Aug 20, 4:50 pm, Lee Oswald Ving <leeov...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote in news:mccoy-1187651750.058268.247780
@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Yes, but the other source says "probably". Historians make mistakes
all the time.

And yet you're basing your entire attack on these 'historians' work.

You're screwed either way, McWelsher.

I'm not basing my view merely on these "historians" work Oswald. The
fact is I cited a metallurgist and 4 historian perspectives, all of
which state that iron use goes back to 4000 BC.

Yes. And those state that the iron used back then was meteoric in
origin, very rare and not used in tools or construction until about
1400 BC. Your sources contradict your own claims, McClueless.

Wokbath claims that iron used back in 4000 BC, was not, as
metallurgist claim, from readility available iron oxides, but rather
from meteorites.

No metallurgist claims that ancient civilizations were smelting iron from
ore in 4000 B.C.

My word for you is wake up. Here's the quote from George Agricola
again:

Says George Agricola:

"The archaeologists' division of the history of racial development
into the Stone, bronze, and Iron Ages, based upon objects found in
tumuli, burial places, etc., would on the face of it inidcate the
prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, and it is generally so
maintained by those scientists. The metallurgists have not hesitated
to protest that while this distinction of "ages" may serve the
archaeologists, and no doubt represents the sequence in qhich the
mtal objects are found, yet it by no means follow that this was the
order of their discovery or use, but that iron by its rapideity
of oxidation has simply not been preserved....Iron ore is of more
frequent occurence than copper ores, and the ncessary reduction of
copper oxides (as most surface ores must have been) to fluid metal
requires a temperature very much higher than does the reduction
of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms, which do not necessitate
fusion. The comparatively GREATER SIMPLICITY OF IRON METALLURGY
UNDER PRIMITIVE CONDITIONS IS WELL EXEMPLIFIED BY THE HILL TRIBES OF
NORTHERN NIGERIA, WHERE IN THE VILLAGE FORGES THE NEGROES REDUCE IRON
SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR NEEDS, FROM HEMATITE." (emphasis mine)

I was wondering when you would repeat this...

You should read more carefully. Agricola didn't say that. You are
quoting a footnote, written not by Agricola, but by Herbert Hoover.
Yes, the president was actually trained as a mining engineer, and
is responsible for creating the first English translation of the work
from the original Latin.

From the Preface:

"There are no footnotes in the original text, and Mr. Hoover is
responsible for them all. He has attempted in them to give not
only such comment as would tend to clarify the text, but also
such information as we have been able to discover with regard to
the prvious history of the subjects mentioned."


They must have found lots of meteorites.

On the contrary: they found very little. Not enough for construction.
Not enough for tools. The stones for the Great Pyramid were cut with
copper tools. Copper is soft. Really, really soft. If they had iron
for tools, they would have used it.

Which is what they used.

No, they didn't.

Read the quote again.

It doesn't say that they did.

Mark



JM



One thing
that should be noted, metallurgists have fought historians since they
made upt the story about the stone age, bronze age, and sofourth.

Really? Like who?

And of course one of the arguments that metallurgists have brought up
is that stone work requires iron tools as bronze is not tough enough
to carve stone.

Of course metallurgists aren't stone masons either.

Secondly, I ask Wokbath to provide, as I requested of Bobby, to
provide an ancient quote to where the Sumerians said, "Go getta ye
meteor iron." This would help substantiate your claims. Otherwise, as
one historian admitted, the meteor idea is a "probably" or, in other
words, a guess.

The Sumerians didn't know of any other kind of iron. Their word for
iron apparently means "sky metal".

Mark



JM

-- Wakboth



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Iron use: 4000BC
    ... >>> which state that iron use goes back to 4000 BC. ... prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, ... metallurgists have fought historians since they ... > made upt the story about the stone age, bronze age, and sofourth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Iron use: 4000BC
    ... which state that iron use goes back to 4000 BC. ... metallurgists have fought historians since they ... made upt the story about the stone age, bronze age, and sofourth. ... one historian admitted, the meteor idea is a "probably" or, in other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Iron use: 4000BC
    ... which state that iron use goes back to 4000 BC. ... They must have found lots of meteorites. ... metallurgists have fought historians since they ... one historian admitted, the meteor idea is a "probably" or, in other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Iron use: 4000BC
    ... which state that iron use goes back to 4000 BC. ... made upt the story about the stone age, bronze age, and sofourth. ... Of course metallurgists aren't stone masons either. ... one historian admitted, the meteor idea is a "probably" or, in other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Daniel 2 and the second coming of Christ
    ... gold, arms of silver, chest of bronze, thighs of brass, legs of iron, ... We are told that the head of gold is Babylon and that another kingdom ... The stone kingdom is identified as the Kingdom of God. ... So although it's true that the Christian church was born at the death ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading