Is Reformed Egyptian just Mikmaq?

[_Malcolm]

Hi Danna,
The characters/symbols do look very like the astrological symbols that you show in your picture.
As you say a mishmash. Probably more mishmash than mikmaq!
We will never know the 'truth' on this issue, but it is obviously made up from JSjr's gleanings and imagination.

[_cinepro]

Here is an interesting blog post that approaches the symbols as a cipher:

Cipher Mysteries - The Anthon Transcript

In summary, probably the least controversial inference you can draw from the lettershapes is their post-1650 dating: the embellished “H” shape and the probable links with Rich-family shorthand letter-shapes indicate that this is in no way ancient.

In the absence of any other credible information, the most likely story I can reconstruct is that the “caractors” in the Anthon Transcript were copied in no particular order from a shorthand Bible (or possibly a shorthand diary), with various other letter-shapes added to make the overall alphabet look more ‘exotic’, or even ”hieroglyphic” (even though, to our modern eyes, these singularly fail to have the desired effect). I would also be fairly unsurprised if the same shorthand Bible itself was subsequently used as a prop to convince skeptics – in short, that this was the Detroit Manuscript itself (but which, like the rest of the Anthon Transcript, subsequently disappeared from sight).

[_MCB]

Yes, cinepro. Stout's article has a pair of pages of a Bible with marginal notes in that form of shorthand. It appears to be an excellent explanation, especially with Ogham, and perhaps astrological symbols mixed in.