Friday, July 17, 2015

Egyptians of Indo-European (Perhaps Indo-Iranian) Extraction Instead of African Extraction

In my research on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP), I sought to identify the language group that the numeral vocalizations came from that show up in the Egyptian Counting section of the KEP.  My research on this is at the following link:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-egyptian-counting-vocalizations-in_4410.html

Also, here is the link showing the very early connection between the written Brahmi (Indian) numerals and the written Egyptian Hieroglyphic and Hieratic numerals, as also, the written numerals in the KEP:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/indo-arabic-numerals-in-egyptian.html

As you know, if you have read other parts of this blog, the numerals in the KEP do not match Ancient Egyptian.  And of course, Anti-Mormons have pounced on that fact in the past and declared victory.  And my message in this blog was to say, not so fast.  If they are not Ancient Egyptian, or to be more precise, if they are not the "Afro-Asiatic" flavor of Ancient Egyptian, then what are they?  Just because they are not from the "Afro-Asiatic" family doesn't mean they are not of SOME language family.  So, I scanned through all the numeral vocalizations of the language families of the whole planet, and I hit a bullseye.  I identified the KEP numeral vocalizations as belonging to the Indo-European family of numerals (specifically of the Indo-Iranian branch), but with a strange mix of a few numerals from the Sino-Tibetan family.  Indo-Iranian, of course, is from the Indian and Persian areas, and Sino-Tibetan is from the Far East and from Tibet.  The Himalayas are, not surprisingly, where these two language families overlap.

So, the readers of my blog may have asked, and continue to ask, what in the world are numerals from these language families doing in Ancient Egypt?  Well, many people suppose that the Egyptians have an African origin for their race, because the Book of Abraham, as an example shows that at least the oldest ruling class after the time of the flood were descendants of Noah through Ham.  Assumptions from the past have been that that meant that ALL Egyptians were from that lineage.  Modern scholarship, on the other hand, shows that Egypt and Sumeria go back much further than the time of Noah with a continual habitation.  This means that Noah's flood was local to wherever it happened, and that these civilizations pre-date Noah's arrival to the middle east.

My preferred explanation is that Noah launched the ark from America, and that the flood happened in America on the East Coast (since the Book of Moses says that the land of Cainan, the domain of the prophets was near the east sea [Moses 6:21], and Joseph Smith was reported to have said that Noah launched from South Carolina).  When he arrived to the southern shores of Mesopotamia by way of an ocean voyage, rather than landing on a mountain in Turkey, his descendants populated Mesopotamia and Egypt almost immediately afterward, becoming the ruling class of both, but also mixing in with the natives.  The same thing happened in America when Lehi's colony arrived there.  Lehi's people became the ruling classes of already-existing American civilizations.  There is a reason the place-name of Noah's landing is Ararat.  It is not the present-day Ararat in Turkey where we generally associate the name.  Rather, that area came to be called that by place-name migration.  Rather, the original Ararat was actually the ancient Sumerian name Eridu, the land of the coast of the Persian Gulf.  In other words, the word Ararat is actually a form of the Sumerian Eridu or Akkadian Iritu.  This is the ancient port city at the mouth or delta of the two rivers of Mesopotamia.  This is where Noah actually disembarked, and people have been looking for the ark in the wrong place all along.  The problem is, of course, that the ark would have never survived thousands, let alone hundreds, of years in that climate.

Anyhow, my point is, there were original natives of Egypt that were there before Noah's/Ham's descendants arrived there, as reported in the Book of Abraham 1:21-27.  This race, separate from the Noaitic immigrants, were of Indo-European extraction, as we shall see.  It is from the Noaites that the Afro-Asiatic Ancient Egyptian language comes.  It was an import. The original language would have been from Indo-European extraction, and therefore, it is likely that the KEP vocalizations for the numerals could possibly representative of an ORIGINAL Egyptian language.  Perhaps the original inhabitants came from the Himalayan region where they would have been able to pick up these numerals from.  Here is what the data shows:
Cranio-facial patterns
1. Craniometric
. . .
"The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups . . . We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."
. . .

2. Cranial Non-metric
Pre-Dynastic Southern Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Northern Egyptians from Gizeh (#60) cluster with Northwest Indians from Punjab and Kashmir (#44), Ancient and Modern Greeks (#48), Scandinavians from Finland, Sweden and Norway (#51, #52), and Modern Germans (#53).
. . . 
3. Cranial Non-metric
Pre-Dynastic Southern Egyptians from Naqada and late dynastic 26th-30th Dynasty Northern Egyptians from Gizeh cluster with Caucasoids [modern Europeans, ancient Byzantine Greeks, and modern Turks]. Note ancient Nubians from Kerma also cluster with Caucasoids and show strong ties with ancient pre dynastic Southern Egyptians. Also not modern sub-Saharan Africans including these East African Somalis do not.
. . .
Dental affinities
1. Dental Metric
Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with modern Afghans and modern North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of modern Europeans and modern West Asians.
. . .
2. Dental Non-metric
12th Dynasty Northern (Lisht), Roman/Byzantine (El Hesa), and Byzantine (Kharga) Egyptians cluster with other North Africans and Europeans (Poundbury, England).
. . .

Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass-reduced teeth like Caucasoids.
. . .

This contrasts with the dental pattern of Sub-Saharan Africans who had massive complex teeth.

Prognathism
Prognathism alone cannot be used as an exact or even extremely competent indicator of genetic structure. With that said, it is notable that the ancient Egyptians as a whole were on the very low end of the prognathism scale like practically all West Eurasian groups as shown. Here the only sub-Saharan Africans which show negative prognathism are East African Somalis. The Egyptian groups shown are ancient Southern Egyptians from Badari, Pre-Dynastic Southern Egyptians from Naqada, and 26th-30th Dynasty Northern Egyptians from Gizeh.
. . .

Forensic reconstruction of King Tut
Forensic anthropologists classify King Tut as being "Caucasian".

May 10, 2005
"Is this the true face of Tut? This silicone-skinned bust is billed as the most accurate forensic reconstruction ever of ancient Egypt's Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It was based on recent 3-D CT scans of the mummy of the "boy king," who is believed to have been about 19 when he died some 3,300 years ago.
Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans (see "King Tut Mummy Scanned"), French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples." (http://archhades.blogspot.com/2011/06/caucasoid-racial-affinities-of-ancient.html?m=1) 
And so, the KEP numerals may actually nail the ancient homeland of the Egyptians down before they ever got to Egypt:  The Himalayas area, perhaps Nepal or something like that.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Answer to a Criticism from a Message Board

On the Mormon Discussions board, there is a criticism that I came across that I wish to answer.  The critic wrote:
Recently I discovered another issue which is interesting. We know that there were two scrolls connected to the old man mummy who was Hor. (Pharaoh himself according to contemporary descriptions.) They are a Book of Breathings (the Hor scroll and the generally accepted source of the Book of Abraham) parts of which are still in the possession of the Church and a Book of the Dead. The Book of the Dead papyrus which was prepared for Hor is in the Louvre. These two scroll date to about 150 BCE.
The Louvre Hor Book of Dead is also badly damaged but its dimensions are about 58" long and 12-13 1/2" tall.
Somewhere between Lebolo removing Hor from his tomb in Egypt and Chandler selling the remaining artifact collection in Kirtland, the Hor Book of the Dead was separated from the mummy and made its way to the Louvre. It would be interesting to compare the two scrolls to see if they were created by the same scribe, but I digress.
In addition to the Hor scroll, the Joseph Smith collection contained another scroll, which he identified as the Book of Joseph. This is actually a Book of the Dead prepared for someone named Ta-sherit-Min which I presume was one of the female mummies; in any case it was not from Hor. The age of this scroll is somewhere after 500 BCE.
So in order for The Book of Abraham and The Book of Joseph to reach Joseph Smith one is required to believe the following:
1.Two complete, long, unknown works by Abraham and Joseph were kept in Egypt for around 2000 years.
2. Egyptian scribes would take common vignettes from Egyptian funerary documents and just slightly change them so they represented scenes from the Book of Abraham. Note that an Egyptian scribe would not have included a vignette of a sacrifice scene (someone holding a knife) as part of a funerary document because the Egyptians believed these scrolls had actual power and a knife wielding caricature would not be included as it would be a threat to the deceased. Maybe we have a Jewish scribe?
3. Two different scribes working hundreds of years apart took two different extremely rare Jewish texts and inscribed them in the middle portions of common burial documents for members of a different religion, in the case of the scroll with Facsimile #1 that scribe would been able to place the scroll unexamined by anyone else on the mummy because of note#2 above.
4.The two scrolls are buried hundreds of years apart on separate mummies neither of which had reason to have Jewish texts like these included as part of their funerary documents.
5. These two mummies make their way to Joseph Smith two thousand years later with the only known copies of these two texts.
6. Joseph Smith translates a portion of one scroll and promises volumes to come from the rest of both scrolls.
7. After Joseph Smith's death every single piece of text from both scrolls that contained either the Book of Abraham or the Book of Joseph was lost, in spite of the fact that the length of the scrolls required to contain those books would far exceed those portions in existence. None of the extant fragments or torn piece, of which there are dozens have anything to do with Abraham or Joseph.
In the end, we are not asked just to believe that we happen to be missing the entire portion of a one of a kind scroll that was buried with Hor which made its way to Joseph Smith and then was lost, we are asked to believe this happened twice, once with Hor and once with another mummy buried at a different time, perhaps hundreds of years apart. (http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=640599#p640599)
As you can see, all this convoluted stuff from regular LDS apologetics on the Book of Abraham fails on many levels that this person points out.  And if it were true that if that is what we were really left with, indeed we would have a problem.  But if one has an explanation like the one on this blog that starts out with the evidence we do have instead, then you only need two common funerary scrolls, a Book of Breathings and a Book of the Dead, and it didn't matter which mummy they came from, or what copy of these texts you ended up with.  What was important is that the ancients repurposed the common Book of Breathings as the Book of Abraham, and that they also repurposed the common Book of the Dead as the Book of Joseph, using the hieroglyphics in them pictographically as I have shown.  Ancient copies of the original TEXT of the Book of Joseph and the Book of Abraham never made it into the hands of Joseph Smith in the first place, and ANY OLD COPY of these common documents would do.  So there is no magic going on, and we know that these common texts ended up in the hands of Joseph Smith.  And there is no convoluted nonsense required.  These are the texts that were used and in the hands of the Prophet.  It is that simple.  So no, actually we are not asked to believe what the critic says we are asked to believe at all.  When one bases one's explanation on the forensic evidence before us, then there is nothing convoluted that needs to be invented to explain this stuff at all.  This is the power and beauty of having an explanation that actually builds on the evidence and that is favored by Occam's razor in the first place.  This is the power of a theory that actually uses evidence as its basis rather than making up things that have no evidentiary basis.