Egyptian Inscriptions In America ?

[inquiringmind]

Another sensational discovery, also made by Barry Fell, is the use of pictorial writing by the Micmac Indians of Arcadia, the Canadian region lying north of Maine and south of the Saint Lawrence estuary. This tribe, which belongs to the Algonquin nation (*), was converted to Christianity in the eighteenth century by Abbe Maillard, who used pictorial writing to compose a catechism, a religious history, the rites of mass, the main prayers and some of the psalms for his parishioners. In 1738, Maillard drew up his Manuel hieroglyphicus Micmac for the use of his French compatriots. For more than two hundred years Maillard was believed to have made up these pictorial characters to write these prayers for the faithful of his parish, but in 1823, sixty-one years after Maillard's death, Campolion began the task of decoding them. Barry Fell has now shown that these Egyptian hieroglyphics are very similar to those used by the Micmac. How was Maillard able to learn Egyptian writing before Campolion showed how it could be read and its meaning understood. There is only one possible answer ľ declares Gallez: the Micmac knew and indeed used Egyptian pictorial writing and had learned it from the Egyptians themselves. How and when this might have occurred are unsolved mysteries, but the fact that the relevant questions are now being asked is a great step forward. The fact is that the present-day Algonquin hold an annual celebration to mark their ancestors' arrival in America from across the sea, but they know neither where they came from nor when.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ySMxaQVBTR8J:www.cristobalcolondeibiza.com/2eng/2eng15.htm+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Questing Beast]

"America" is a big place and has been part of the earth for as long as anywhere. I am sure we know almost nothing about the coming and going of explorers or the arrival of migrating bands, etc....

[Robert F. Smith]

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

It isn't clear who authored this summary of a wide variety of facts, rumors, and theories (maybe Nito Verdera?). Some of it is accurate, but much of it is no more than a mishmash. Verdera can't even spell the name of Betty Meggers (Smithsonian) properly -- he calls her Betty Meyers -- and no one actually familiar with these issues could make that sort of mistake. She died last year, by the way. A great archeologist who made some amazing discoveries.

[Anijen]

Glyn Daniels review of Berry Fells work here

Fell a Harvard scholar (Professor of Zoology) wrote his books not as an academic essay, but to a popular audience, in fact most archaeologist refute Fells work as far as pre-Colombian visits from the Old World to America. There is no evidence supporting his epigraphic interpretations. Examples of Fell's claims are;

1. That a massive Celt population had explored Northeast of this continent 4000 years ago. For a good source to read about Celts, read Giovanna Neudorfers book Vermont's Stone Chambers (1980)

2. Fell claimed Phoenicians Egyptians, Israelite, Greeks, and Scandinavians had visited America. It was these claims from his books that made him famous with the public and infamous with archaeologist. Fell like Meldrum used many artifacts that have proven to be frauds (Davenport Tablets, Bat Creek Stone).

3.Fell claimed he could translate Ogham. Other archaeologist labeled Fell and his translation as "delusional." One example is Fell dates New World Ogham inscriptions to before Ogham was even invented in Europe (see Kenneth L. Feders Dubious Archaeology).

4. Fell claimed the authenticity of the New Mexico Decalogue Stone. The Decalogue Stone is connected to Frank Hibben a well known perpetrator of fraudulent artifacts, however the Decalogue stone has been proven a fraud by the the claim it is Paleo-Hebrew when modern Hebrew punctuation was used.

Hoped this was helpful.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Anijen

[bcuzbcuz]

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

Read material about the actual MicMac language, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%27kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing as a starter. Then go material that shows actual Egyptian hieroglyphs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs could be a starting point.

Fell was maybe an expert in sea urchins but he was dead wrong about the connection between the dictionary by French missionary Chrétien Le Clercq and its relationship to Egyptian hieroglyphs.

[Robert F. Smith]

Glyn Daniels review of Berry Fells work here

Fell a Harvard scholar (Professor of Zoology) wrote his books not as an academic essay, but to a popular audience, in fact most archaeologist refute Fells work as far as pre-Colombian visits from the Old World to America. There is no evidence supporting his epigraphic interpretations.

................................................

Quite true, and much of the rest of the summary provided by Nito Verdera at that webcache above is, as I said, a mishmash. If one wants to know about authentic pre-Columbian visits to the New World, one must read articles and books by Betty Meggers and Dennis Stanford (both of the Smithsonian). See especially

Meggers, Betty J., Prehistoric America: An Ecological Perspective, 3rd expanded ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010).

Stanford, Dennis J., and Bruce A. Bradley, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (U.C. Press, 2012)

In addition, we know from archeology that Vikings visited North America, and Icelandic DNA suggests that they even brought an Amerind woman back from one of their forays. See http://news.national...science-europe/ , and http://www.smithsoni...gy/vikings.html .

Edited May 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Stroopwafel]

If I'm not mistake, I think it is Acadia, not Arcadia.

[nosmelone]

I actually posted part of that micmac alphabet on my blog for possible evidence of egyptian language use in the new world and have since had to recant it but I know that Nibley in his dealings with the traditional Hopi elders in Oraibi used to bring egyptian hieroglyphics to them and they were able to read portions of it. Too bad he never went into specifics as far as I know but maybe some of those who were close to him could give further insights.

[The Nehor]

If I'm not mistake, I think it is Acadia, not Arcadia.

It's Atlantis.

[ERayR]

I think the notion that North and South America was totally isolated until Columbus is unrealistic.

[MormonMason]

See the PBS documentary entitled, The Curse of the Cocaine Mummies.

[EllenMaksoud]

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

Also, look up Muslims in America. I do not know the scholarship of the resources. In the 50's, we were taught that Columbus was first. I think it is fairly obvious that there were many well before him.

[Anijen]

I think the notion that North and South America was totally isolated until Columbus is unrealistic.

I agree. Obviously as a member I believe this also. I try to keep the excellent scholarly work separated from the fantasy. Bell's claims in my opinion tended to be on the fringe if not downright out there. I believe he did this for ratings and book sales. His popular radio program declined in ratings when he stayed with the boring academic stuff and had a larger listening audience when things were a little more stretched.

I am sure there were some people and small groups who must have made it to the Americas. There is evidence of pottery which match Japanese pottery that has been found in South America, I have not written off the possibility of the cocaine mummies, and we all know there where Vikings/Celts here, but not in the huge numbers Bell claims... I try to keep an open mind and I am always looking for validation for such. Having said that I also apply sound archaeological training to such claims. For example we can trace hunter/gatherer groups and their travels by their campsites, kill sites, midden deposits, etc. from about 4000 years ago in New York (and these were small groups). If such huge numbers there would be traces left behind.

This is one reason (among others) I do not subscribe to a heartland model or a final battle site in New York. Such a group would undoubtedly left a trail, there is none. Perhaps we have not found those yet, I argue if the Hill near Palmyra was the place of a massive battle that took four years of preparation we would find stuff since we know the place. I have heard the stories of the "massive" amount of arrowheads supposedly found there, I have found a few myself. I can identify a Clovis point from a Cumberland one. I know the difference from an artifact left from the Early Woodland from the Late woodland stage, and I have yet to find a connection to such a site or to have it correspond within the time frame of the Book of Mormon. I can trace a trail from a stone depository site to the campsites of these ancient inhabitants of this country, yet I cannot for a large Lamanite/Nephite group. I observed Meldrum in one of his videos showing an arrowhead and like his other artifacts he used as a support, from the video it was an obvious Clovis point complete with fluted markings etc. Clovis points predate the Book of Mormon so it could have no possible connection.

[Robert F. Smith]

The strongest evidence by far for pre-Columbian diffusion from Old World to the New World (and vice versa) is genetic and biological in nature:

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, “Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages,” in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2006), 238-297.

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492 (N.Y./Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009).

In Archaeology Odyssey, 3/2 (Mar-Apr 2000), 34, David Mattingly claims a pre-Columbian ("late medieval") maize horizon at Germa (Garama), Libya, in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[ERayR]

Having said that I also apply sound archaeological training to such claims. For example we can trace hunter/gatherer groups and their travels by their campsites, kill sites, midden deposits, etc. from about 4000 years ago in New York (and these were small groups). If such huge numbers there would be traces left behind.

And a good imagination helps.

[bcuzbcuz]

The strongest evidence by far for pre-Columbian diffusion from Old World to the New World (and vice versa) is genetic and biological in nature:

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, “Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages,” in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2006), 238-297.

Sorenson, John L., and Carl L. Johannessen, World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492 (N.Y./Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009).

In Archaeology Odyssey, 3/2 (Mar-Apr 2000), 34, David Mattingly claims a pre-Columbian ("late medieval") maize horizon at Germa (Garama), Libya, in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

Sorenson and Johannessen made many claims regarding biological links between Asia, Asia Minor, Asian sub-continent to the Americas but their work entailed little about genetics. Did I miss their references and studies? Mattingly's field of study is archaeology not botany and I can find no references to his work (except at Maxwell Institute and a few similar references) and definitely nothing that mentions genetics. Please clarify.

[MormonMason]

...and definitely nothing that mentions genetics....

Genetics are only a small part of the pie. FYI. MtDNA only preserves one direct line on the maternal side. Y-chDNA only preserves a single, direct line on the paternal side. That often still leaves many thousands of descendants unaccounted for in genetic population studies. So many tend to forget that when they make genetic studies the end-all and be-all of population studies and try to use such things as weapons against the Book of Mormon.

Edited May 22, 2013 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

Sorenson and Johannessen made many claims regarding biological links between Asia, Asia Minor, Asian sub-continent to the Americas but their work entailed little about genetics. Did I miss their references and studies? Mattingly's field of study is archaeology not botany and I can find no references to his work (except at Maxwell Institute and a few similar references) and definitely nothing that mentions genetics. Please clarify.

I cited Mattingly in Archaeology Odyssey, which is available in university libraries and online at http://www.bib-arch.org/archaeology-odyssey.asp . Get some friends to teach you how to use the internet search engines.

I don't know how you could have missed it (there is lots of it), but genetics is essential in analyzing which botanicals and other organisms are in fact related and which are not. In their "Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas," Sorenson and Johannessen argue, for example, that

"

Recent genetic research has shown that a portion of the gene sequence of a local cotton species in southern Mexico,

G. gossypioides

, had one line of its ancestry direct from an African cotton (Wendel

et al

. 1995, 308—9). The genetic argument holds that some unknown but distinctively African cotton was introduced anciently to Mesoamerica. There, part of its gene sequence was incorporated by introgression into a pre-existing American species to yield

G. gossypioides

. We do not have direct evidence for a voyage, but no sequence of purely natural events can be conceived of to explain the arrival of the African element. Stephens (1971, 406—

points out why an accidental, passive scenario for the spread by ocean drift of any variety of domesticated cotton is highly unlikely." Online at

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=154#1

.

They likewise discuss the cytogenetic analysis of bananas and plantains, the genetics of kidney beans, the genetic contributions to microfauna (see Table 4), the genetics of T cell lymphotropic retroviruses, etc. Their detailed sources and notes on genetics can be found at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=155 , and http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=156 .

If your only interest is genetics, you should use that as a search term in those documents. Have someone show you how it's done. If you live in Utah Valley, I'll be happy to show you how.

[Anijen]

And a good imagination helps.

Sure imagination helps as long as what I imagine fits the evidence. For example I imagine a large flying dragon that breathes fire and sails the seas. That could be interpreted as a ship firing canons close to land and observed by a native who has never seen such an object. It is imaginative and it could possibly be a descriptor of such a happening however, it is not evidence.

New York has had many archaeological sites explored professionally. The different colors of stone can be traced to their exact source if its blue, red, gray, black, also by the pattern of grain (such as in wood, these projectile points have a pattern in them) etc, we have the skills and technology to trace those projectile points back to the rock from which they came. With fish hooks and points made from bones can be carbon dated. The site taken in whole, we can deduct by the stratigraphy layers the dates of the objects, an example of this would be if no pottery where found, we can tell that the group were not sedentary, but hunter/gatherers/fishers, pottery shows a more agri dependent people, and therefore gives us further detail in the period of time these people lived. The manner in which the projectile points were flaked can also tell us which group made the points, (for example were they fluted),

We can tell if a site was restricted area of occupation by one group or more than one used the same site, but in a different time, even to the level of if it was a single cultural group or if there was a shared common tradition or custom. We can tell the difference from a Algonquian from a Iroquoian site, even if the same site was used. The size of the artifacts also give us clues, for example the larger projectile points we know were spears or small javelins thrown or propelled by an atlatl. These larger points where used for big game such as a mastodon (Clovis hunter/gatherers), as big game became more scarce then we see the transition to smaller projectile points.

In general yes imagination helps, but archaeological evidence is ever abundant in New York. If so for small groups then large groups such as a Lamanite /Nephite army, migratory or not there would be evidence for such. There is no evidence for such an army around the hill Cumorah. I guess to summarize it up when someone says look at all the arrowheads found nearby that does not mean these artifacts came from the Nephites or Lamanites. Also to mention these stories of baskets full of arrowheads are hearsay not from a primary source. I travel out to these areas every year to vacation, have fun, but also to do research, when I was in Nauvoo I saw a person selling rocks and this person said they came from the original Nauvoo temple, many Mormon tourist bought these rocks. The same goes for arrowheads in New York, "hey lets sell these "basket loads of arrowheads to the Mormons and tell them they are from the final battle"

Apoligize for such a lengthy post

Anijen

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................

Apoligize for such a lengthy post

Anijen

Thanks, Anijen, for a very worthwhile and well-informed post.