153 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

Just a brief and somewhat cryptic update to this as yet unresolved controversy:

Until just recently, no one in the field of Egyptology had ever really concerned themselves with things such as the thickness of papyrus, the length of windings, or the length of missing portions of scrolls for which only fragments remain.  As a result of the controversy surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri (specifically the original length of the scroll of Hor), impetus has now been given for more systematic study of these questions.  Consequently, it has been possible, through a comparative analysis of scrolls of known lengths, to not only develop a reliable methodology for estimating the missing length of a papyrus scroll, but also to test the methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith teams.  I can therefore report, absent any detail or further elaboration at this juncture, that the methodology I describe in my forthcoming paper has been shown to produce reasonably accurate results.  My having averaged all the papyrus thickness measurements, instead of using only the ones from undamaged areas of the papyrus, caused me to underestimate the original length of the scroll of Hor by about 1 meter.

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

A detailed report of these continuing studies will appear, within the coming year or so, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

[USU78]

Can you give us a hint at the number of papyri studied to arrive at your conclusions?  The boobirds will, no doubt, want to know that there was a statistically significant sample studied.

[William Schryver]

USU78, on 12 November 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Can you give us a hint at the number of papyri studied to arrive at your conclusions?  The boobirds will, no doubt, want to know that there was a statistically significant sample studied.

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand."  That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside.  Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

Edited by William Schryver, 12 November 2010 - 02:05 PM.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 12 November 2010 - 12:29 PM, said:

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

I still think you should read our paper Will. And I'll be very interested to hear how your thickness measurements enable you to establish a lower bound on the missing length.

Quote

A detailed report of these continuing studies will appear, within the coming year or so, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.

What happened to your paper in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture?

[USU78]

William Schryver, on 12 November 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand."  That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside.  Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

Thanks, Will.

I'm going to speculate here that the relevant measures are thickness of the papyrus, thickness of the rolled-up papyrus, and length of the scroll . . . that they tend to exist in certain ratios in the samples tested.

Close enough?

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 12 November 2010 - 02:04 PM, said:

I still think you should read our paper Will. And I'll be very interested to hear how your thickness measurements enable you to establish a lower bound on the missing length.

As I understand it, the thickness of the papyrus is not a factor in the new methodology that has been developed--although that methodology does predict the thickness.

Quote

What happened to your paper in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture?

It has been completed for several months, but has been on hold in anticipation of these other studies to which I have made reference.  It will yet appear in that journal, with some minor modifications.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will, any reason for your non-disclosure of the author's identity?

If this new methodology turns out to be legitimate and to produce accurate results, I'll be the first to welcome it. It would make more sense of the Charlotte Haven account than our 60 cm finding (though it would jive less well with other evidence). However, our results seem pretty solid, so for the moment I remain skeptical that they will be overturned.

I am glad to hear that the new methodology does not rely on thicknesses. That method, it seems to me, rested on far too many problematic assumptions.

Edited by Chris Smith, 12 November 2010 - 05:50 PM.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 12 November 2010 - 12:29 PM, said:

   ...to test the  methodologies employed by the competing Schryver and Cook/Smith  teams.

  Whoever is doing this will first have to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of our method before I'll have any confidence that they can employ it properly.

The astute reader of our paper will notice that our method contains its own internal tests and checks on accuracy:
1. the independently measured top and bottom edges agree with each other,
2. fragments I & XI predict the winding lengths of fragment X and vice versa.

William Schryver, on 12 November 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

First of all, it should be understood that I am reporting this information "second-hand."  That said, the studies are taking place within the realm of the professional Egyptologists (and papyrologists), rather than the realm of the amateurs, where I undeniably reside.  Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that it appears a reliable methodology has been developed for accurately calculating the length of a papyrus scroll for which only a portion is extant.

Is this John Gee's solo effort or is someone else involved as well?

Quote

The Cook/Smith methodology underestimates the original length of the scroll of Hor by no less than 4 meters.

William Schryver, on 12 November 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

It  has been completed for several months, but has been on hold in  anticipation of these other studies to which I have made reference.  It  will yet appear in that journal, with some minor modifications.

While you're revising your paper, apparently to make it agree with whatever John is coming up with, why don't you try rolling up 4.6 meters of papyrus into a scroll with an outer circumference no greater than 9.5 cm (Gee's measurement for the innermost extant winding)? Then post a picture of it here for your fans to marvel at.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

While you're revising your paper, apparently to make it agree with whatever John is coming up with ...

Charming, as always.

Quote

... why don't you try rolling up 4.6 meters of papyrus into a scroll with an outer circumference no greater than 9.5 cm ...

Funny you should mention this ... I think you have some surprises coming your way.

You know, I don't believe I've ever gotten an answer from you to the question of how thick you believe the Hor papyrus to be.  Of course, as you know, the measurements we performed indicated that the thickness of the undamaged areas of the papyrus is in the range of 100 - 125 microns.  As I recall, you have disputed (at least implicitly) that measurement.  How thick do you believe the papyrus to be?

Quote

... (Gee's measurement for the innermost extant winding)?

John's originally published winding measurements were not accurate--something he acknowledges and will correct in a forthcoming article.  He agrees, more or less, with my measurements of the first three winding lengths (10.48, 10.30, 10.13 [all in cm, based on a starting point ~1.0 cm in from the outer edge of JSP I]).

Quote

Then post a picture of it here for your fans to marvel at.

I will post some interesting pictures in an upcoming post.

Quote

The astute reader of our paper will notice that our method contains its own internal tests and checks on accuracy ...

Well, we shall see.  I am aware of at least a handful of "astute readers" that have weighed your methodology in the balance, and it has been found wanting.
.
.
.
CS:

Quote

I am glad to hear that the new methodology does not rely on thicknesses.

As I presently understand it (and I must emphasize that I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with the papyrologist to discuss the specifics) the thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary measurement in the methodology that has been developed.  However, the formula does give a reasonably accurate estimate of the papyrus thickness.  Therefore, knowing the thickness of the papyrus is an important element of confirming data.  Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll.  The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm.

I am confident that it will be conclusively demonstrated that the formula you and Cook employed is fatally flawed.

Quote

That method, it seems to me, rested on far too many problematic assumptions.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.  The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all.  It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings.  Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 13 November 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

John's originally published winding measurements were not accurate--something he acknowledges and will correct in a forthcoming article.  He agrees, more or less, with my measurements of the first three winding lengths (10.48, 10.30, 10.13 [all in cm, based on a starting point ~1.0 cm in from the outer edge of JSP I]).

I can understand why you arrived at the first two of those numbers. My initial measurements of the first two windings produced very similar results, and our automated methodology returned similar numbers for the top edge of these first two windings, as well. However, we got very different results when we used the bottom edge and the vertical "cracks" in the papyrus. It turned out to be the bottom edge and "crack" results that best agreed with our measurements of the other windings. This is all laid out in detail in our paper.

Quote

Furthermore, as I illustrate in my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very accurately estimate the original length of the scroll.  The original length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm.

I find it quite telling that you have chosen to focus exclusively on the first three windings. I think you would be hard-pressed to reconcile your first three winding lengths with the physical characteristics of pJS X. Your measurements imply that the winding lengths for pJS X should be in the neighborhood of 9.8 cm. But I think anyone with eyes and a ruler should be able to see that the pJS X winding lengths are actually much shorter than that.

Quote

I don't think you know what you're talking about.  The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions at all. It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements: the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three windings.  Its simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

I was referring to your earlier methodology based on thicknesses, not the new one. Your earlier methodology assumed that papyrus thickness was a close approximation of effective thickness-- that is, the change in scroll radius per winding.

As for the new methodology, do you mind if I ask how you have ensured that your measurements of the first three windings are "objective"?

Peace,

-Chris

Edited by Chris Smith, 13 November 2010 - 06:29 PM.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 13 November 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

You  know, I don't believe I've ever gotten an answer from you to the  question of how thick you believe the Hor papyrus to be.

The average thickness of the Hor papyrus is no greater than 700 microns.

Quote

Of  course, as you know, the measurements we performed indicated that the  thickness of the undamaged areas of the papyrus is in the range of 100 -  125 microns

The physical thickness of the papyrus is only  relevant insofar as it sets a lower bound on the effective thickness. If  your measurements were correct, they would not be inconsistent with our  results. Nevertheless, I believe your measurements are off by 300-500  microns.

Quote

John's  originally published winding measurements were not accurate--something  he acknowledges and will correct in a forthcoming article.  He agrees,  more or less, with my measurements of the first three winding lengths  (10.48, 10.30, 10.13 [all in cm, based on a starting point ~1.0 cm in  from the outer edge of JSP I]).

10.48 is pretty close, but 10.30 and 10.13 are too high; see Figure 27 to find out why.

Quote

As  I presently understand it (and I must emphasize that I have not yet had  the opportunity to sit down with the papyrologist to discuss the  specifics) the thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary measurement  in the methodology that has been developed.  However, the formula does  give a reasonably accurate estimate of the papyrus  thickness.  Therefore, knowing the thickness of the papyrus is an  important element of confirming data.  Furthermore, as I illustrate in  my forthcoming article, if you do know the thickness of the  papyrus and at least the first three winding lengths, you can very  accurately estimate the original length of the scroll.  The original  length was in the neighborhood of 500 cm.

Okay, I think I can reconstruct what you've done:
1. John apparently read enough of our paper to discover that 511 cm is necessary to accommodate the BoA.
2. After he passed this information along to you, you decided to pull back your paper to go for a better fit.
3. Your effective thickness of 279 microns (from your winding lengths) gives you a scroll length of 300 cm, which is too short.
4. Your measured thickness of 100-125 microns gives you a scroll length of ~700 cm, which is too long.
5. By averaging your effective and measured thicknesses, you manage to hit the right length, just like Goldilocks.

Quote

I  am confident that it will be conclusively demonstrated that the formula  you and Cook employed is fatally flawed.

There are 10 numbered formulas in our paper. Which one of them is "fatally flawed"? Or are they all wrong?

Quote

I don't think you know what you're talking about.  The method I describe in my paper actually rests on no assumptions  at all.  It is based on nothing more than four objective measurements:  the thickness of the papyrus and the length of the first three  windings.

William, your statement here raises several alarm bells:
First  of all, you've picked the most problematic section to work with. The  damage to the rightmost major lacuna in XI after the scroll was unrolled  alters the perception of winding length in a subtle manner.
Secondly, your juxtaposition of measured thickness with winding lengths suggests that you are averaging apples and oranges. Thirdly, to echo Chris, how exactly are your measurements "objective"?

Quote

Its  simplicity is its virtue, and explains why it is superior (by several  orders of magnitude) to the methodology you and Cook employed.

And what exactly is our methodology Will? (Hint: Read our paper to find out!)

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

I believe your measurements are off by 300-500 microns.

In other words, you are suggesting that John Gee, George Fisher, Howard Fisher, and I are blatantly lying about the measurements we performed on February 5, 2010; that we have deliberately understated the papyrus thickness to be less than 25% of its actual thickness.

It must be quite satisfying to be able, with utter impunity, to casually toss out such libelous allegations on a public message board.

Quote

Okay, I think I can reconstruct what you've done:
1. John apparently read enough of our paper to discover that 511 cm is necessary to accommodate the BoA.
2. After he passed this information along to you, you decided to pull back your paper to go for a better fit.
3. Your effective thickness of 279 microns (from your winding lengths) gives you a scroll length of 300 cm, which is too short.
4. Your measured thickness of 100-125 microns gives you a scroll length of ~700 cm, which is too long.
5. By averaging your effective and measured thicknesses, you manage to hit the right length, just like Goldilocks.

In other words, you are suggesting that John Gee and I have now deliberately conspired to manipulate the results of our papyri analysis in order that our conclusions will conform to a pre-conceived result.  Or, to be more succinct, you are suggesting that John Gee and I are deliberately conspiring together to craft a set of blatant lies to foist upon our prospective readers.

It must be quite satisfying to be able, with utter impunity, to casually toss out such libelous allegations on a public message board.

In any event, my paper has been completed for many months.  There have been no revisions consequent to your article, and there will be no substantive revisions consequent to the more recent studies to which I have referred above.  It was delayed in order to see if this new approach would confirm its findings, or render them moot.  It has now been decided to publish it simply because it represents a “step along the way” to realizing a more reliable methodology for determining the original length of papyrus scrolls based on surviving fragments.  

I have had absolutely no involvement with the more recent studies to which I have referred.  Subsequent articles on this topic will not be authored by me, and will appear in mainstream, peer-reviewed Egyptological journals.

You believe that you developed a methodology to accurately estimate the original length of the scroll of Hor.  We shall see whether or not your claims hold up to the scrutiny that is being applied to them.  To date, the reviews of which I am aware are anything but positive.  Frankly, I believe you have been completely blinded by confirmation bias and are utterly incapable of recognizing the gross errors in your approach to this question.

At any rate, your argument in the future will not be with me, but rather with professional Egyptologists and Papyrologists.  It remains to be seen if your penchant for characterizing as liars your intellectual opponents plays as well outside the insular environment of Mormon-related message boards.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 14 November 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

We shall see whether or not your claims hold up to the scrutiny that is being applied to them.

We have given Dialogue Journal all of our data and requested they make it freely available for download along with our paper. Bear in mind, however, that our methodology constitutes a very time-consuming labor-intensive process. Getting the digital edge functions to precisely match the analog tracings requires great patience and care due to the idiosyncrasies of scanning and printing. Fortunately, our digital data spares potential reviewers this effort. All they have to do to check our measurements is print out the functions exactly to scale and overlay them on the papyri to see if they match.

Quote

To date, the reviews of which I am aware are anything but positive.

That's odd, since we've yet to encounter a single negative review. Perhaps if you read the paper, you could be the first to provide one!

Quote

Frankly, I believe you have been completely blinded by confirmation bias and are utterly incapable of recognizing the gross errors in your approach to this question.

I'm still waiting for an equation number and/or page reference. You could try your luck and pick one at random!

Quote

At any rate, your argument in the future will not be with me, but rather with professional Egyptologists and Papyrologists.

Are George and Howard Fisher papyrologists?

Quote

It remains to be seen if your penchant for characterizing as liars your intellectual opponents plays as well outside the insular environment of Mormon-related message boards.

Charming, as always.

(Note my completion of your chiastic structure.)

Edited by Mortal Man, 14 November 2010 - 03:50 PM.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

… we've yet to encounter a single negative review.

Be patient.

Quote

Perhaps if you read the paper, you could be the first to provide one!

I will not be reviewing the paper.

Quote

Are George and Howard Fisher papyrologists?

No.  They’re experts at measuring the thickness of very thin things--and they have cool high-tech instruments to do it.