Archaeologica.org

I have no idea about any of the veracity, I've not looked at the primary sources (the references) but it was certainly interesting to read. I also don't have much of an idea of how some of this might apply to your dilemma, however the author certainly delves into the concept of historical artifacts that many archeologists use to "place" artifacts that show up in out of place...places.

Ancient History as taught today is a disaster area. Nothing fits convincingly together. The development of the arts, cultures and technologies from earliest times shows inexplicable incongruities. Art historians and archaeologists are in disarray

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;

go read some of heavily agendised posters in this forum and you'll soon see what I mean about how having an agenda makes you claim erroneous truths to explain the gaps that exist in their own reasoning

One of Tubal-Cain's brothers, Jubal, is said to have been the father of all who play the harp and flute.

claiming a link to your finds with the stories in Genesis is going to get you nothing but ridicule Charlie
claiming that the bible is a history book is also not a good idea

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden

Why do you need a "story?"

21 And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.

Flutes were ubiquitous in antiquity. In early depictions they are sometimes confused with reedpipes. Their most primitive forms have already been mentioned. In early historical periods they were known in Sumer and Egypt,

so what you're saying is that a book written by Hebrews based on stories derived from mesopotamian texts and set in the middle east is the best evidence you have that what you have been finding in america was made by people

Flutes were ubiquitous in antiquity. In early depictions they are sometimes confused with reedpipes. Their most primitive forms have already been mentioned. In early historical periods they were known in Sumer and Egypt,

Iron and Steel
The Book of Mormon states that metals, including iron and steel (an iron alloy), were produced and used among the Book of Mormon peoples. It has been pointed out that there is little evidence of steel production in central and southern America, and would have been difficult to produce steel in those locales.[citation needed] Iron and steel are mentioned together in the Bible.[115]

LDS scholars note that the word steel could have been an approximate translation, actually referring to another type of metal entirely for which there would have been no word in 19th century America (see Tumbaga and similar copper and iron based metals). Steel is only mentioned in three verses (2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, Ether 7:9) in the Book of Mormon, all before 360 B.C. (by the book's chronology) and could have referred to an Old-World skill that was forgotten.

Possible evidence exists that iron and steel metallurgy took place among North American indigenous groups. Two internet sources, neither affiliated with the LDS, present a few sites that may provide possible evidence. One unusual site in Central Texas presents a hypothesized furnace carved directly into the bedrock of an ancient creekbed, and includes hypothesized blow holes manufactured also in the limestone creekbed. [116] Several iron bird effigies and an elephant effigy are presented to strengthen the hypothesis. The artifacts and smelting facilities have been found in the same context as Clovis and possible preClovis stone artifacts.

Another website covers not only possible sites in the East, but also provides a small amount of evidence that may indicate that Anasazi or Hohokam tribes in the Southwest performed iron smelting. Other excavations in North America have uncovered what were once possibly iron smelting sites, and archaeological evidence including layering techniques support that they may have existed from pre-historic times (prior to the Hopewellian culture).[117] However, radiocarbon dating evidence for these sites places them at the beginning of the 18th century (1700s). Other researchers believe that these smelting sites were the work of Ohio's immigrants of European descent, although there is no evidence of European settlers in the area at the time.[118] Frontiersmen and trappers were not common, but not unheard of, and are likely candidates for the builders of the furnaces under this theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeolog ... _of_Mormon

Blah, blah, blah...we already went over all this. Your take only

Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns.

During the early 1980s, reports circulated in LDS culture that the Book of Mormon was being used by the Smithsonian to guide primary archaeological research. This rumor was brought to the attention of Smithsonian directors who, in 1996, sent a form letter to inquiring parties stating that the Smithsonian did not use the Book of Mormon to guide any research, and included a list of specific reasons Smithsonian archaeologists considered the Book of Mormon historically unlikely.[126] In 1998, the Smithsonian revised the form letter they sent in response to this issue to take a less combative stance,[127] specifically replacing detailed allegations of the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon with a simple statement that the Book of Mormon has not been used by the Smithsonian in any form of archaeological research. Mormon scholars suggest this may have been because the 1996 letter contradicts some aspects of research published by Smithsonian staff members; Non-LDS scholars note that the Smithsonian has not retracted any of its previous statements, and feel that the response was toned down to avoid negative public relations with Mormons. Terryl Givens suggests that the change in the statement was "in all likelihood a product of controversy-avoidance."[128]