Mayan Numerals in the "Anthon Transcript"?

[Olavarria]

Seriously, I dont think that is the case. There are several difficulties when dealing with the AT. 1)It doesnt fit the description made by Charles Anton. He described the charaters as being in vertical columns and accompanied by an "aztec zodiac". 2) If the AT is legit then it is probably the copy of a copy; Joseph from the plates, and from Joseph to what we have here. So it mos likely isnt exactly a perfect representation of what is on the plates. Joseph must have made errors in transcribing, as did whoever, if any one did, copied the original, assuming what we have is a copy of the original.

Now for the meat, Hashbaz made the suggestion awhile back that the AT could be upside down. So I flipped it upside down and found characters that look kinda like the mayan numerals for 1,2,5,9 and 0. Now, this might just be coincidence. I am not offering it up as a "BoM Bulls Eye" but I think it's kinda cool and does invite further study.

[consiglieri]

Creative and interesting.

The most likely match would appear to be in the upper right hand corner of the inverted Anthon manuscript, where there is a line above which are four dots.

This directly equates to the Mayan glyph for the number 9.

There are places where there is one dot, which would be a number one, but one dot is not much to hang your hat on (figuratively or literally).

There are places with two dots, which would be the number two, and that is a little bit more, but not huge. (Obviously, both the one dot and the two dots remain the same regardless of whether they are inverted.)

The number 9 is of interest, though.

Nice work, Her Amun.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mfbukowski]

Interesting stuff. If I am thinking correctly, the reformed egyptian here represented, if that is what it is, would be a pre-cursor to later scripts? I don't know enough about the Mayan stuff I guess. But in thinking about it, we should look at the anthon ms to be a pre-cursor of the later script, as phonecian is to hebrew. Is that right?

[Olavarria]

Interesting stuff. If I am thinking correctly, the reformed egyptian here represented, if that is what it is, would be a pre-cursor to later scripts? I don't know enough about the Mayan stuff I guess. But in thinking about it, we should look at the anthon ms to be a pre-cursor of the later script, as phonecian is to hebrew. Is that right?

I dont have the foggiest. I believe that the meso scripts we know developed indepentantly from the reformed egyptian. If there was any influence then it was the other way around: meso influencing nephite.

[Phinehas]

I dont have the foggiest. I believe that the meso scripts we know developed indepentantly from the reformed egyptian. If there was any influence then it was the other way around: meso influencing nephite.

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed...

[Rommelator]

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed...

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=636

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=36

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...formed_Egyptian

And for a summary of these articles:

http://americantestament.blogspot.com/2008...d-egyptian.html

[Phinehas]

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=636

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=36

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_an...formed_Egyptian

And for a summary of these articles:

http://americantestament.blogspot.com/2008...d-egyptian.html

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Just what I thought.

[hagoth7]

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed...

As has been mentioned multiple times in this forum, reformed egyptian is likely not a language - it is instead a way of describing a writing system derived from egyptian.

We're both using a form of reformed egyptian (the latin alphabet derives from phoenician, which derives from egyptian) to convey meaning here in this forum.

[cdowis]

Just what I thought.

As with BOM geography, reformed egyptian is not a doctrinal issue. It is a matter of intellectual and scientific investigation.

But you already knew that.

[Rommelator]

Just what I thought.

So of all the things you could have criticized and demonstrate as false on either mine or Prof. Hamblin's articles, you cherry pick the fact that, in following standard bureaucratic red tape, FARMS put this disclaimer? Nice. And how exactly does this refute Hamblin's analysis... hmmmm?

[Olavarria]

Just what I thought.

Meriotic, egyptian characters modified to write Nubian, actually have more affinities for the AT than my "mayan numerals". Again, I'm NOT saying RE is Mayan or Meriotic.

[Scottie]

My only problem here is that the church has recently said that the BoM peoples were not the primary ancestors of the Americas, so it is doubtful that any of the languages we know about have anything to do with RE.

[Anijen]

My only problem here is that the church has recently said that the BoM peoples were not the primary ancestors of the Americas, so it is doubtful that any of the languages we know about have anything to do with RE.

Scottie perhaps when they landed the people already here influenced them. Perhaps their language was only a spoken one until the time of Lehi's arrival and Lehi used there language and Egyptian and Hebrew etc

[Olavarria]

My only problem here is that the church has recently said that the BoM peoples were not the primary ancestors of the Americas, so it is doubtful that any of the languages we know about have anything to do with RE.

Im partial to agreeing with you. I don't think there is any reason for us to justify the idea that RE was used by anyone BUT the Nephite prophet-historians. Its what Mormon used to write the BoM, and what others may have used in some of the sources he used to compose the BoM. If there was any relation between RE and any mesoamerican script then it was one of "meso influencing RE", not "RE influencing meso". I could be wrong; I dont read any ancient language, apart from Chinese.

[Olavarria]

Im partial to agreeing with you. I don't think there is any reason for us to justify the idea that RE was used by anyone BUT the Nephite prophet-historians. Its what Mormon used to write the BoM, and what others may have used in some of the sources he used to compose the BoM. If there was any relation between RE and any mesoamerican script then it was one of "meso influencing RE", not "RE influencing meso". I could be wrong; I dont read any ancient language, apart from Chinese.

Found Hashbaz's original post reffering to what I said in the OP.

QUOTE

Actually some of the characters from the Anthon manuscript are identical to Maya. For example, I see the Maya bar and dot system of numerals used a couple of times (ex: the bar with 4 dots = 9), and there are a few that bear close resemblance to those recorded in Landa's famous "alphabet" (which was key in the decipherment of the glyphs). Incidentally, I think the Anthon manuscript is upside down.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/religi...da-alphabet.gif

[Bernard Gui]

Seriously, I dont think that is the case. There are several difficulties when dealing with the AT. 1)It doesnt fit the description made by Charles Anton. He described the charaters as being in vertical columns and accompanied by an "aztec zodiac". 2) If the AT is legit then it is probably the copy of a copy; Joseph from the plates, and from Joseph to what we have here. So it mos likely isnt exactly a perfect representation of what is on the plates. Joseph must have made errors in transcribing, as did whoever, if any one did, copied the original, assuming what we have is a copy of the original.

Now for the meat, Hashbaz made the suggestion awhile back that the AT could be upside down. So I flipped it upside down and found characters that look kinda like the mayan numerals for 1,2,5,9 and 0. Now, this might just be coincidence. I am not offering it up as a "BoM Bulls Eye" but I think it's kinda cool and does invite further study.

The word nine appears in Omni 21, 3 Nephi 2:7-8, and the word ninth in Alma 4:11&20, 8:2, and Helaman 4:8.

For what it's worth.

Bernard

[hagoth7]

....There are several difficulties when dealing with the AT. 1)It doesnt fit the description made by Charles Anton. He described the charaters as being in vertical columns and accompanied by an "aztec zodiac".

Perhaps. But it could be the original. If you simply flip the characters 90 degrees, then you instantly have vertical columns. The bottom tear could then simply be a fold in the paper which contained something Anthon thought resembled a zodiac - a portion of the page that tore off and was lost over the years.

Whether the symbols were actually intended to have been read with that orientation is a different question.

Either Martin or Prof. Anthon could have easily flubbed on that one.

So I don't see any key problems with this being the original document.

[rick7475]

And don't forget that some of the characters on the AT have been matched with characters from 2 artifacts in Mesoamerica.

RE: Jones, Carl Hugh, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals"

[Zakuska]

Just what I thought.

What where you expecting? Smithsonian confirms anthon transcript?

HER:

Do we know what page of the BOM the Anthon transcript came from?

[Bernard Gui]

What where expecting?Smithsonian confirms anthon transcript?

HER:

Do we know what page of the BOM the Anthon transcript came from?

That's why I pointed out where 9 or 9th appear in the BoM.

Bernard

[Zakuska]

Ok but perhaps it came from the missing transcript... book of lehi and so wont be there.

There also seem to be other counting associated characters. Like the circled 'i's used 3 times. Then theres one like a tick mark system. a bunch of little lines and a bar. (it seems to repesent 10) its used twice. 9 * 10 would be 90 right?

You also seemed to have missed one. its missing the dots though.

Also... didn't he take a translation of the characters so Prof. Anthon could confirm the tanslation? Where did that go?

[hagoth7]

....then theres one like a tick mark system. a bunch of little lines and a bar.

Those resemble Ogham.

(Edited to add link)

[Zakuska]

You know I just thought of another thing. Nephi said he wrote his plates in "reformed egyptian" but that doesn't necessarily mean that Mormon and Moroni (how many Generations removed) used the same writing system.

[hagoth7]

You know I just thought of another thing. Nephi said he wrote his plates in "reformed egyptian" but that doesn't necessarily mean that Mormon and Moroni (how many Generations removed) used the same writing system.

Unfortunately doesn't fit. From Mormon 9:32:And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

...then again...he does admit it had been altered...so even if it's still called reformed Egyptian, perhaps there's quite a bit of truth to what you're suggesting.

[Zakuska]

Yep just as i thought...

Though the so-called Anthon transcript contains a mere seven lines of text, it contains about eighty different characters; however, since the sample size is small, one is not able to determine whether the script is syllabic (like Ethiopic) or logographic (like Egyptian or Mayan). The transcript was in the possession of Oliver Cowdery who gave it to David Whitmer; it then passed to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with the rest of David Whitmer's manuscripts. If this is the copy of the characters that was taken to Anthon, then it comes from the part of the Book of Mormon that was translated while Martin Harris was the scribe, and thus is from the missing 116 pages. If this were the case, we should expect it to be from Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite record (see Words of Mormon 1:3â??7; D&C 10:30, 38â??42). This would mean that it would be from the handwriting of Mormon (after ca. A.D. 362; see Mormon 3:8â??11) and not from the small plates. We would then expect it to be a Semitic language written in an Egyptian scriptâ??a Semitic language that had been modified by time and creolization with the American languages, and an Egyptian script that had been modified not only by being engraved on metal plates, but also changed along with the handwriting styles and modifications of the Nephites (see Mormon 9:32). This has then been copied by a nineteenth-century hand in pen and ink.7

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=329

It also seems that martin must have showed much more to Athon then just the transcropt. Because anthon describes it as a cirlcular document with compartments.