Favorite line (emphasis added):
I spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to determine what a sword from the time period of Laban would look like, its construction, etc. I could not locate one from his time period, but I did for an earlier time period, that of Solomon, about 250 years earlier. Using the description in the Book of Mormon, of the sword of Laban, I obtained a replica of the sword of Solomon, gold hilt and all.
The sword that I obtained weighs over eight pounds, is bottom heavy, (a gold handle), and is extremely clumsy to use – much to heavy to use in battle.
Bonus comment:
The hilt of a sword is the wrapping around the tang. It can indeed be made of gold wire. I know swords. The crossguard, or quillons, would NOT be be made of soft metal. In history, swords wielded by certain leaders might well have a gold wire or silver wire hilt. The whole hilt will NOT be so wrapped. The base will be leather with the final layer being the wire.
I have hundreds of them in my collection and I hold a 7th dan in Kendo. Steel was nearly unheard of in Pre-columbian America. Obsidian swords CAN be sheathed. You make the scabbard out of leather that has been boiled in oil. This would NOT be cow leather as there were no cows in Pre-C America.
The Sword of Solomon was crap.
So the Sword of Laban probably was not an effective weapon. Nibley says the gold hilt was a symbol of power (despite Nephi saying he used it in battle to defend his people) and that it was never intended to fight with. He compares it to the dagger of King Tut as evidence that such things existed in the ancient world.
“[N]one is more famous or more beautiful than the fine steel dagger with its hilt of pure gold and finest workmanship, that was found on the person of the youthful King Tutankhamen” (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, V).
Ok… steel dagger with a hilt of pure gold, should be just a google away…
“…Tutankhamen’s tomb also contained a dagger with a gold blade” (The Age of Iron: Tutankhamen’s Tomb).
Wait… whuh? Gold blade?
“One of the most famous examples is knifemaker Buster Warenski’s replication of the gold dagger found in King Tut’s tomb. Warenski’s dagger was made with a cast gold blade and the knife contained 32 ounces of pure gold in its construction.”
Here is a picture of tut’s knife.
Did I just catch Nibley in a published lie? That is very clearly NOT a steel knife with a golden hilt!
It’s a golden knife all the way through. Not a symbol of power and authority on a useable knife, but clearly just a symbolic knife (try cutting anything with gold).
Oh Nibley… did you have to mislead the entire church on such a simple matter?
There were actually 2 daggers one of pure gold the other with an iron blade – see http://www.touregypt.net/museum/tutl43.htm. “Tutankhamun’s mummy was provided with two daggers encased in gold sheaths, one with an iron blade and the other with a blade of hardened gold.” Simply googling didn’t bring this site up – I had to do a little (emphasis on the little) more digging to find this.
I stand corrected. So there is an iron blade set in gold. Every indication is that it was never used (no rust, put inside to be sealed up, to precious to let go on tour)
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen//~gel115/115CH5.html
Certainly, this is a one-of-a-kind find. Which makes the probability that a wine-guzzling governor in Jerusalem would have a big one still very unlikely.
But I do stand corrected that there was actually an iron blade with a gold hilt somewhere in history.
So you’re officially apologizing to Nibley for calling him a liar? I’m sure he appreciates it.
I stand corrected. So there is an iron blade set in gold. Every indication is that it was never used (no rust, put inside to be sealed up, to precious to let go on tour)
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen//~gel115/115CH5.html
Certainly, this is a one-of-a-kind find. Which makes the probability that a wine-guzzling governor in Jerusalem would have a big one still very unlikely.
But I do stand corrected that there was actually an iron blade with a gold hilt somewhere in history.
Actually, it very likely wasn’t unusual. If you read on in the article you posted, by the time of the wine-guzzling governor, iron had become pretty cheap…. “By the 7th century BC in Greece, a silver drachma would buy an iron ingot 2000 times it own weight. In other words, iron had become 80,000 times cheaper in relation to silver in those 1200 years, and the process undoubtedly continued as the Romans developed large-scale production and distribution.”
The swords of that period 800-660BC would have had a blade made of hammered iron. The blade would have been a long triangular shape. The guard, as it would have been called in medieval times, would have been “part of the blade” and virtually non existent. The hilt of the sword, if made of gold, would have been about the size of a ping-pong ball. Normally the hilt would have been hammered into a ball shape made of bronze. [note: the hilt of a sword is not the whole handle of a sword from the blade back it also had another name. A pommel]. If such a sword as the sword of Laban did exist, it would have most likely had only a gold dipped ball, or perhaps a gold dipped disk for a hilt. Would have been about as long as the forearm of a man. and weigh about 2 1/2 lbs. If this sword would have come against the wooden obsidian sword of the aztec, it would have broken after a few strikes, as the aztec on Mayan sword was like a Cricket bat.
That’s assuming, of course that we are going with a “literal” sword, instead of Joseph translating conceptually; that is to say any long pointed thing for fighting would count as sword at all.
But yes, 600 B.C. weapons were different than “swords”. But any “Pure gold” bit of weapon would have warped in combat. That’s why we don’t find any other combat-level weapons of “pure gold” anywhere. (King tut had a dagger of pure gold he was buried with, but it was understood to be ornamental and not a serious weapon in any way shape or form)