Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

[_Fence Sitter]

Important to remember here, and this becomes very clear when looking at all the other examples provided so far of Anubis, the scribe for the Hor scroll was really poor when it came to his artistic ability. My belief is that the ear was simply drawn shorter due to that reason and that is what we see there on top of Anubis' head after Hedlock chopped off the snout. Why the ear was left is unknown at this point but I do not think it has much bearing on the evidence that the snout was removed from the woodcarving. Also, remember, if it was actually removed from the woodcarving, then that is evidence that it was still on the original in the possession of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.

Why the snout was removed is the question at this point, in my mind. I have a hard time believing that it was done without the expressed permission or direction of Joseph Smith. I don't think there is any question in anyone's mind that Joseph Smith was responsible for filling in the lacuna in the other two facsimiles, so why would we question it here?

[_abinadi_fire]

I give it 3 at this point Paul.

abinadi_fire,

I think you will change your score after a little more thoughtful consideration.

It is argued that Joseph Smith and Reuben Hedlock failed to restore Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 with a jackal head because the head was missing in the original papyrus -- thus the lucuna. Smith and Hedlock did not know that an animal head was appropriate so they fabricated a human head. You'll note that the human head they provided is for a white man but they put it on a black man's body. A major blunder, wouldn't you say?

Yes. The whole thing is a blunder, actually. If they knew the jackal headed Anubis figure was the same character in both sections, I would have expected them to make them look the same in the restoration.

Now, look at the woodcuts for Anubis in both Facsimiles. Look at the faces. Look at the relief cut of the wood and how it's designed to transfer ink from the wood to the paper to provide color for the skin. Facsimile No. 1 is a white man's head while Facsimile No. 3 is a a black man's.

Now, look at both woodcuts and examine the ears. You see that the one in Facsimile No. 1 is a human ear, fabricated and designed by Hedlock and approved by Joseph Smith. Right? But what of the ear for Anubis in Facsimile No. 3? Where is it? Where is the ear? Tell me where the ear is, please.

I don’t think they knew it was Anubis in both sections, Paul. You don’t see the ear because they didn’t know it was the same figure - they had no idea that it was supposed to be Anubis in both of those representations. The fact that they didn’t make both of the heads black leads to that conclusion as well.

Further, the non-removal of the “ear-spike” indicates they had no idea it was an ear, which may mean the scraps that had the jackal head on them had already been torn away and were missing before Smith started his translation work - perhaps torn away during the unrolling process.

Will you consider raising your score just a little? I think that would be fair and equitable -- a more balanced approach. I really don't see that you have much of a choice.

I’d raise my score if there were a description from one of the witnesses to the papyri stating he saw a jackal- or dog-headed figure on the papyri.

Truth be told, I want you to have found something, there just isn’t enough evidence at this time.

[_Shulem]

Yes. The whole thing is a blunder, actually. If they knew the jackal headed Anubis figure was the same character in both sections, I would have expected them to make them look the same in the restoration.

It seems that in the process of Smith's "restoration" Anubis came up with the short end of the stick. He was denied his godhood in the Egyptian pantheon, stripped of his divine priesthood, and portrayed without a khat to adorn his head. Not only that, Smith labeled him a ritualistic murderer in one scene and a slave in another. If I was was Anubis, I'd feel a great deal of rage in my heart against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don’t think they knew it was Anubis in both sections, Paul. You don’t see the ear because they didn’t know it was the same figure - they had no idea that it was supposed to be Anubis in both of those representations. The fact that they didn’t make both of the heads black leads to that conclusion as well.

Yes, you're right, they didn't know. They were clueless, left to their own devise and imagination in creating a "restoration" to meld with the story playing out in Smith's head. Thus we see, Smith and his supposed Holy Spirit didn't comprehend what they were dealing with or express it properly.

Further, the non-removal of the “ear-spike” indicates they had no idea it was an ear, which may mean the scraps that had the jackal head on them had already been torn away and were missing before Smith started his translation work - perhaps torn away during the unrolling process.

I recently determined that I now believe the lucana in Facsimile No. 1 was exactly that (a lucuna) and there was no jackal head on the original papyrus for that particular vignette. But further down the roll the vignette for Facsimile No. 3 was intact and Anubis was fully visible ushering Hor into the presence of Maat, Osiris, and Isis. The discussion about why Smith did not remove the "spike" is ongoing. It has not been fully fleshed out, yet. We will get to the bottom of this mystery. I have to wonder if Hedlock recorded something in a letter or correspondence. I can only speculate.

I’d raise my score if there were a description from one of the witnesses to the papyri stating he saw a jackal- or dog-headed figure on the papyri.

Truth be told, I want you to have found something, there just isn’t enough evidence at this time.

Right. Like I said above, there may be some correspondence that has survived to this day, written by someone in Kirtland or Nauvoo, who saw the original papyrus and described a doglike character in the Facsimile.

Also, a professional examination of the woodcut surrounding Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 is required and the church will begin this process in their own biased way. The woodcut needs further examination. Greater magnification to include a 3 dimensional scope and consultation analysis from expert craftsman who are familiar with 19th century woodworking is required.

I do believe you will raise your score as the evidence is examined. Are you at least willing to consider a 4?

[_abinadi_fire]

But further down the roll the vignette for Facsimile No. 3 was intact and Anubis was fully visible ushering Hor into the presence of Maat, Osiris, and Isis.

I am unaware of the survival of that particular vignette (now facsimile #3) from the papyrus. We know the source from facsimile #1 was recovered, but not that of facsimile #3.

While they must have been looking at a vignette on the papyrus that included at least part of the figures, we do not know if that included the snout of the jackal-headed Anubis. It almost certainly included at least the ear, but to my knowledge there is no original extant that we can compare to for facsimile #3.

For all we know there was a ripped portion where the snout should have been - unless you can produce the papyrus that shows the jackal head in full, my assumption is there was a lacuna at that spot - similar to that of facsimile #1.

The woodcut needs further examination. Greater magnification to include a 3 dimensional scope and consultation analysis from expert craftsman who are familiar with 19th century woodworking is required.

Agreed.

I do believe you will raise your score as the evidence is examined. Are you at least willing to consider a 4?

I would consider raising to a 10 pending further evidence. Your observation is interesting, and I think it is worth continued analysis.

[_Philo Sofee]

abinadi_fire
For all we know there was a ripped portion where the snout should have been - unless you can produce the papyrus that shows the jackal head in full, my assumption is there was a lacuna at that spot - similar to that of facsimile #1.

To help the probability, other scenes similar to fac 3 can be checked to see how and if Anubis is portrayed. So far as I remember seeing, Anubis is always snouted and eared. It at least ups the probability that Smith was truly wrong in his "inspired" depiction in the facsimiles of how Anubis was viewed and drawn. It appears to me probability is against Joseph Smith on this.

But then again, apologists can always fall back on Gee's caper that the priest was wearing an Anubis mask, and that it is fine to depict the priest as human headed..... although if memory serves me right, both Lanny Bell and Ritner have refuted that claim of Gee's.

[_Shulem]

I am unaware of the survival of that particular vignette (now facsimile #3) from the papyrus. We know the source from facsimile #1 was recovered, but not that of facsimile #3.

The artistic quality of the scribe who produced the original was marginal and it's generally considered to be low quality work. But that's beside the point. Look at the outer perimeters of the Facsimile, from side to side and top to bottom. It all seems relatively intact and consistent. Infact, the whole decorum is acceptable. There isn't any lucana in the bottom register in which Smith would have needed to supply missing characters like he did with the Hypocephalus, supplying characters upside down, a 50% chance of doing that. The bottom section although crudely redone by Hedlock is adequate whereby modern Egyptologists can read the inscription. The same for the hieroglyphic characters in the top registers. They are all there, intact. We can read the whole thing. No lucuna there.

Hedlock copied all of it and the writing is intact whereby Egyptologists can read it as easily as the scribe who originally penned it. The heads of Isis, Osiris, Maat, and Horus were appropriately taken from that of the papyrus to the woodcut and the Facsimile reveals exactly who they are to include the hieroglyphic writing above them. It's all there, just fine. The problem we have is when it comes to Anubis's head. That's the problem. And now, you suggest that there may have been a lucuna or a hole in the papyrus at that very spot?

Hence we now have the case of the MISSING LACUNA!



Just when I thought I had heard everything! The missing lucana theory is not going to work. It's DOA. It's grasping for straws.

While they must have been looking at a vignette on the papyrus that included at least part of the figures, we do not know if that included the snout of the jackal-headed Anubis. It almost certainly included at least the ear, but to my knowledge there is no original extant that we can compare to for facsimile #3.

The original is indeed missing. But we have what we have. We have a single ear atop the head as I so loudly attested in an earlier post. We have a human head with an odd eyeball and no trace of a human ear. Further examination will reveal more. You can be sure of that.

For all we know there was a ripped portion where the snout should have been - unless you can produce the papyrus that shows the jackal head in full, my assumption is there was a lacuna at that spot - similar to that of facsimile #1.

So, we now have the MISSING SNOUT theory or the MISSING LUCUNA theory. This sounds like an apologist's straw, a very long one at that. What if. What if. What if.

Oh my.

[Guest]

Facsimile #3 was on the inside end of the Hor scroll. All the lacuna in the extant portions of the Hor scroll extend to the top of the scroll or the bottom. Given that the Facsimile #3 was in the most protected portion of the scroll it is not reasonable to suggest there might of been a hole as a lacuna precisely at the location of the snout on Anubis in Facsimile #3.

On Edit: The above is not correct.

I wrote this last night from my phone without checking and there are some (2 or 3) lacuna holes on the interior of the extant papyri. I continue to believe that it is probable that the snout was removed from the woodcarving but there is a possibility that the only hole in facsimile #3 was exactly at the snout.

One of the interesting things about the lacuna is that in some places you can see the verso side of the extant papyri. These are areas where the color is slightly darker than the surrounding backing paper. So when the original was glued to the backing paper, these areas probably still had text on them which has since worn off or fallen off. On the Hor scroll a few of them were filled in with patches that Ritner matched up to the lacuna.

[_Shulem]

I would consider raising to a 10 pending further evidence. Your observation is interesting, and I think it is worth continued analysis.

I'm confident that further professional examination of the woodcut will aid in reaching this marvelous conclusion. You will agree that a human head with an animal ear atop and no trace of a human ear on the side is EVIDENCE that the figure was and is ANUBIS.

[_Shulem]

Facsimile #3 was on the inside end of the Hor scroll. All the lacuna in the extant portions of the Hor scroll extend to the top of the scroll or the bottom. There are no places in the extant portions where we see holes as lacuna. Given that the Facsimile #3 was in the most protected portion of the scroll it is not reasonable to suggest there might of been a hole as a lacuna at the location of the snout on Anubis in Facsimile #3.

The missing lucuna theory is an apologetic trick that will not gain traction. This straw will provide very little oxygen for the faithful. I hope the apologists adopt it. It will be a pleasure to swat it down just as I did the missing roll theory.

[_Shulem]

abinadi_fire
For all we know there was a ripped portion where the snout should have been - unless you can produce the papyrus that shows the jackal head in full, my assumption is there was a lacuna at that spot - similar to that of facsimile #1.

To help the probability, other scenes similar to fac 3 can be checked to see how and if Anubis is portrayed. So far as I remember seeing, Anubis is always snouted and eared. It at least ups the probability that Smith was truly wrong in his "inspired" depiction in the facsimiles of how Anubis was viewed and drawn. It appears to me probability is against Joseph Smith on this.

But then again, apologists can always fall back on Gee's caper that the priest was wearing an Anubis mask, and that it is fine to depict the priest as human headed..... although if memory serves me right, both Lanny Bell and Ritner have refuted that claim of Gee's.

What's really missing from Facsimile No. 3, abinadi_fire?

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

A king's name. Is there a lucuna for that too?