Shout Out to Shulem!

[Shulem]

If FIRST came the glue and SECOND came the Pencil:

1. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table
2. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
3. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
4. The glued dried
5. POSSIBILITY THAT PIECES OF PAPYRUS WERE REMOVED TO FORM MORE LACUNEA
5. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
6. POSSIBILITY THAT PIECES OF PAPYRUS WERE REMOVED TO FORM MORE LACUNAE
7. Sketches of the priest's head, knife in right hand, and bony Abraham were complete
8. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management
9. The doodles of the priest's head and bony Abraham remained safely behind glass
10. It was determined later that the knife would be placed in the left hand

REVISION AS FOLLOWS:

(I've modified the list, added a POSSIBLE element, and fixed the numbering)

1. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
2. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table for gluing
3. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
4. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
5. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
6. The glued dried
7. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
8. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
9. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
10. Sketches of the priest's head, knife in right hand, and bony Abraham were complete
11. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management
12. The doodles of the priest's head and bony Abraham remained safely behind glass
13. Later it was determined the knife would be placed in the left hand for publication

[Shulem]

That, plus the bubble of glue that seems to ooze up between the two mismatched pieces at the bottom, is why I don't think the glue was loose enough that a pull, while tearing off a piece, would displace the edges to that extent.

Lem,

Oh boy, oh man. Okay, what you said earlier has NOW properly sunk in. I just don't think I was processing what you said earlier and failed to comment on those specific points YOU made. I moved on too fast without processing it. For that, I feel stupid, or just tired?

It could be that the split was a problem in the papyrus prior to laying it down on paper. The papyrus roll was not without problems.

I'm sure you can understand my desire and willingness to explore every possibility. Leave no stone unturned. I think it would be delicious to come up with a working theory, that's credible, to demonstrate how Smith might have removed the jackal head from the papyrus. Whether that can be done, remains to be seen.

[Lem]

That, plus the bubble of glue that seems to ooze up between the two mismatched pieces at the bottom, is why I don't think the glue was loose enough that a pull, while tearing off a piece, would displace the edges to that extent.

Lem,

Oh boy, oh man. Okay, what you said earlier has NOW properly sunk in. I just don't think I was processing what you said earlier and failed to comment on those specific points YOU made. I moved on too fast without processing it. For that, I feel stupid, or just tired?

It could be that the split was a problem in the papyrus prior to laying it down on paper. The papyrus roll was not without problems.

I'm sure you can understand my desire and willingness to explore every possibility. Leave no stone unturned. I think it would be delicious to come up with a working theory, that's credible, to demonstrate how Smith might have removed the jackal head from the papyrus. Whether that can be done, remains to be seen.

I absolutely understand! To that end, I had a thought--- I have been inclined to argue that there was no jackal head, and Smith added a human head, simply out of ignorance.

However, there is one rationale I could see as a reason to remove the jackal head from the papyrus we are considering. If Smith had already decided the snout should be removed from the other facsimile, he couldn't then have it show up in facsimile 1, right? Is there any timeline on that decision making process? Could Smith have decided to tear off thejackalhead because he already took it out of the other by having the snout shaved down? Or even the other way around. In both cases, if he had an issue with a jackal head representation, then it would be consistent to remove it by whatever means worked.

[Lem]

On the other hand, as best I can tell, Smith twice drew in a two-sided jackal head in the hydrocephalus, where heads were missing. How did he know about jackal heads, to add those? And yet, remove jackal heads elsewhere, at least once and possibly twice?

[Shulem]

However, there is one rationale I could see as a reason to remove the jackal head from the papyrus we are considering. If Smith had already decided the snout should be removed from the other facsimile, he couldn't then have it show up in facsimile 1, right? Is there any timeline on that decision making process? Could Smith have decided to tear off thejackalhead because he already took it out of the other by having the snout shaved down? Or even the other way around. In both cases, if he had an issue with a jackal head representation, then it would be consistent to remove it by whatever means worked.

You've made my head spin. Help!

Okay, according to Muhlestein, "Historical evidence suggests that in late 1837 or early 1838, pieces of papyri were glued to this and other papers and cut into smaller pieces, some of which were put under glass to preserve the papyrus fragments from further deterioration."

I've assumed all along that the pencil doodles were performed at *that* time prior to being set in the frames. Is it possible that the fragments were removed from the frames and doodles were made at a much later date, before publication in Nauvoo when eyewitnesses described the knife scene prior to publication of the Facsimiles?

The three Facsimiles were published on separate dates in 1842. Nobody knows exactly when Reuben Hedlock completed the three lead printing plates other than the fact that each one must have been ready on the day of publication in 1842 -- (1) march 1st, (2) March 15, (3) May 16.

Is it possible the doodles were performed in Nauvoo preparatory to getting the story and Facsimiles ready for publication and design of the lead plates?

OMFG.

Lem?

[Lem]

However, there is one rationale I could see as a reason to remove the jackal head from the papyrus we are considering. If Smith had already decided the snout should be removed from the other facsimile, he couldn't then have it show up in facsimile 1, right? Is there any timeline on that decision making process? Could Smith have decided to tear off thejackalhead because he already took it out of the other by having the snout shaved down? Or even the other way around. In both cases, if he had an issue with a jackal head representation, then it would be consistent to remove it by whatever means worked.

You've made my head spin. Help!

Okay, according to Muhlestein, "Historical evidence suggests that in late 1837 or early 1838, pieces of papyri were glued to this and other papers and cut into smaller pieces, some of which were put under glass to preserve the papyrus fragments from further deterioration."

I've assumed all along that the pencil doodles were performed at *that* time prior to being set in the frames. Is it possible that the fragments were removed from the frames and doodles were made at a much later date, before publication in Nauvoo when eyewitnesses described the knife scene prior to publication of the Facsimiles?

The three Facsimiles were published on separate dates in 1842. Nobody knows exactly when Reuben Hedlock completed the three lead printing plates other than the fact that each one must have been ready on the day of publication in 1842 -- (1) march 1st, (2) March 15, (3) May 16.

Is it possible the doodles were performed in Nauvoo preparatory to getting the story and Facsimiles ready for publication and design of the lead plates?

OMFG.

Lem?

you've got me now, my dear! I have no idea, but I'm certainly willing to read through whatever sources you recommend to help pin the time frame down.

Just spitballing, If facsimile 1 was first prepared by Rueben for March 1st, with the jackalhead already removed AND Smith knew it was removed, then maybe Smith made Rueben scrape down the nose in facsimile 3 to be consistent.

[Shulem]

On the other hand, as best I can tell, Smith twice drew in a two-sided jackal head in the hydrocephalus, where heads were missing. How did he know about jackal heads, to add those? And yet, remove jackal heads elsewhere, at least once and possibly twice?

The two-sides (two-headed) animals in the Hypocephalus (Facsmile No. 2) are not jackals. They are other animal gods that have horns. Smith was able to decorate missing portions of the Hypocephalus by comparing it with undamaged sections of the Hypocephalus and other papyrus on hand.

[Lem]

On the other hand, as best I can tell, Smith twice drew in a two-sided jackal head in the hydrocephalus, where heads were missing. How did he know about jackal heads, to add those? And yet, remove jackal heads elsewhere, at least once and possibly twice?

The two-sides (two-headed) animals in the Hypocephalus (Facsmile No. 2) are not jackals. They are other animal gods that have horns. Smith was able to decorate missing portions of the Hypocephalus by comparing it with undamaged sections of the Hypocephalus and other papyrus on hand.

Ok. So, he had no problem putting in animal heads there, why in the two facsimiles could he not? Out of ignorance, preferring human heads, with no regard for the actual work? Or a specific choice not to?

[Shulem]

REVISION AS FOLLOWS:

(I've modified the list, added a POSSIBLE element, and fixed the numbering)

1. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
2. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table for gluing
3. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
4. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
5. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
6. The glued dried
7. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
8. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
9. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
10. Sketches of the priest's head, knife in right hand, and bony Abraham were complete
11. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management
12. The doodles of the priest's head and bony Abraham remained safely behind glass
13. Later it was determined the knife would be placed in the left hand for publication

REVISED TO REFLECT THE POSSIBITY THAT THE SKETCH DOODLES ON THE PAPER BACKING WERE MADE LATER IN NAUVOO AND NOT IN OHIO:

OHIO:
1. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
2. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table for gluing
3. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the LOOSE fragment
4. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
5. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
6. The glued dried
7. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
8. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
9. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
10. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
11. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management
12. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment

NAUVOO
13. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
14. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
15. Later it was determined the knife would be placed in the left hand for publication

[Shulem]

Ok. So, he had no problem putting in animal heads there, why in the two facsimiles could he not? Out of ignorance, preferring human heads, with no regard for the actual work? Or a specific choice not to?

Smith didn't care about animal heads per se just so long as it wasn't a jackal head (symbol of Masonic POWER) atop the head of his SLAVE in Facsimile No. 3. A jackal headed person depicted in Facsimile No. 1 would also be seen as a symbol of power and that would clash or draw attention to his so-called slave in Facsimile No. 3. Bird headed or ram headed people were just fine in Smith's book. But he couldn't get caught with a jackal head atop his slave. That was a no-no. My thinking is that Smith had to separate any idea of Smith's slave with being associated with the jackal.