Scroll Length?

[William Schryver]

There is also, of course, the possibility that the rolling of the outer wraps of the papyrus might have been crooked, which I suspect would skew the measurements if measured from a straight baseline.

Last reply before I head to FHE: the real problem (in respect to your observation), as I see it, is that the fragments were partially twisted and distorted when they were glued to the backing paper. This would make it particularly difficult to establish a reliable baseline for measurements of the kind Cook/Smith assert to be able to make.

[wenglund]

Wade, this is complete nonsense.

I am open to you demonstrating why. I asked for this before without response, but perhaps you might now be so kind as to use your formula and tell us how each .1 cm change in difference in winding lengths (between the outermost winding length--let's keep this at 10.5 cm, and the next winding length) affects the overall length of the scroll.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I can't reply to other posts on this thread for the time being--FHE and whatnot. But I will tell you, Wade, that you will not find any measurements for Papyrus Greenfield. I corresponded extensively with a curator at the British Museum on that and other questions. There are no measurements, other than length, for Papyrus Greenfield.

I appreciate you letting me know so that I won't waste my time. I have been Googling for awhile now without success.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

Another question:

If alleged shrinkage of the papyri supposedly affected the overall average thickness of the papyri rendering Will's measurements irrelevant, why did that same alleged shrinkage not affect your measurements of the winding widths?

Edited November 15, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Last reply before I head to FHE: the real problem (in respect to your observation), as I see it, is that the fragments were partially twisted and distorted when they were glued to the backing paper. This would make it particularly difficult to establish a reliable baseline for measurements of the kind Cook/Smith assert to be able to make.

Right. And a combined twisting of the winding of original roll combined with a different twisting of the roll as it was glued to the paper backing, would distort it even more. When we are dealing with 0.1 cm differences, this could be potentially distort the result.

[William Schryver]

Right. And a combined twisting of the winding of original roll combined with a different twisting of the roll as it was glued to the paper backing, would distort it even more. When we are dealing with 0.1 cm differences, this could be potentially distort the result.

This underscores one of the reasons that I don't believe an automated process can sufficiently compensate for the irregularities. I believe human reasoning and judgment must be brought to bear on the question. I certainly don't believe I have been able to compensate fully for the irregularities. But I believe human judgment is required to assess those irregularities and compensate as fully as possible for them. I attempted to identify multiple control segments in addition to the winding length segments themselves. I am not willing to publicly reveal all of my methodology at this point, but a few people who have participated on this thread have had the opportunity to review a draft of my article and are free to offer their opinions as to how well I achieved my goal.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[Bill Hamblin]

This underscores one of the reasons that I don't believe an automated process can sufficiently compensate for the irregularities. I believe human reasoning and judgment must be brought to bear on the question. I certainly don't believe I have been able to compensate fully for the irregularities. But I believe human judgment is required to assess those irregularities and compensate as fully as possible for them. I attempted to identify multiple control segments in addition to the winding length segments themselves. I am not willing to publicly reveal all of my methodology at this point, but a few people who have participated on this thread have had the opportunity to review a draft of my article and are free to offer their opinions as to how well I achieved my goal.

I think your averaging of multiple control points is a superior method to the single control point I believe Chris and Andrew used.

I also think it is important to note that the papyrus was damaged, after which there was continued degradation on the damaged edges which could theoretically cause more errors in establishing control point.

[wenglund]

Evidently, the Greenfield Papyrus is now separated into 96 sheets (see video HERE), of varied length (between 47 and 80 cm) and widths (around 30 to 54 cm), depending upon the frame they have been put in. A picture of the 1st sheet and dimensions, including the frame, can be viewed HERE.

Evidently, the sheets were originally glued or sewn together, and through the use of a wooden rod ("omphalos in Greek and umbilicus in Latin--see HERE), they were rolled up into a scroll.

If no measurements were taken of the Greenfield Papyrus when it was rolled up, this may explain why we can't get the measurements now.

I examined the reported dimensions of one of the sheets, and the thickness was given of 1.5 cm. (see HERE)

Speaking of putting thing into perspective, if anyone is interest in seeing a real size image of the scroll before it was unrolled, see HERE. It is quite a bit larger than the burrito-sized image MM posted earlier.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 15, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

I examined the reported dimensions of one of the sheets, and the thickness was given of 1.5 cm. (see HERE)

I seriously doubt the papyrus is 15,000 microns thick. I've got a 20-year-old ash tree that doesn't have bark that thick. Someone in the British Museum must be using a variant of the Cook formula in order to calculate papyrus thickness.

[William Schryver]

Evidently, the sheets were originally glued or sewn together, and through the use of a wooden rod ("omphalos in Greek and umbilicus in Latin--see HERE), they were rolled up into a scroll.

Papyrus Greenfield was not rolled on an umbilicus. I don't know of any Egyptian papyri that were rolled on an umbilicus. The first centimeter or so of the papyrus was folded over and the rest of the length was rolled around that fold. You can see the layers of papyrus clear to the center core in the top photo of the end-view image to which you linked in your post.

[William Schryver]

Another question:

If alleged shrinkage of the papyri supposedly affected the overall average thickness of the papyri rendering Will's measurements irrelevant, why did that same alleged shrinkage not affect your measurements of the winding widths?

Bill, it appears that, in response to this question, Andrew has taken pretty much the only course of action available to him: fall silent. In fact, even all his cheerleaders have fallen silent. (Fifth Columnist, where are you? You're welcome to answer Bill's question, too.)

Oh, well ... I guess I'm willing to at least raise the profile of the question by reiterating it:

If alleged shrinkage of the papyri supposedly affects the overall average thickness of the papyri (presumably casting some kind of doubt on our measurements), why does that same shrinkage effect not similarly affect your measurements of the winding lengths?

You see, folks: Andrew is attempting to make some kind of analogy concerning grapes and raisins, but the fact is that we're all measuring raisins here, and no one is trying to predict how big the grape was in 200 B.C. We're all making measurements of the papyrus's dimensions NOW in order to estimate what it's total length would be NOW. No one is making measurements of the dimensions of the papyrus in 2011 in order estimate what it's length was in 200 B.C.

In short, this entire discussion of papyrus shrinkage and damage, etc., is a diversionary sideshow. It has no meaning whatsoever. We're all dealing with the current status of the papyrus with the objective of estimating what its length would be now, were the lost portion not lost.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[LeSellers]

this entire discussion of papyrus shrinkage and damage, etc., is a diversionary sideshow. It has no meaning whatsoever. We're all dealing with the current status of the papyrus with the objective of estimating what its length would be now, were the lost portion not lost.

Even if the thickness of the papyrus shrank by 50% or more, it does not follow that the length of the scroll would have dropped by anything like a similar fraction. It might affect (and probably would) the tightness of the windings, but the length would fall by what— 7~10%, tops?

Nor would it affect the winding length (absent an elastic wrapping and slippery surfaces on the papyrus itself: unlikely or impossible).

Based on these facts, I entirely agree with your position here.

Lehi

[William Schryver]

Even if the thickness of the papyrus shrank by 50% or more ...

The last step in papyrus production was to extrude all of the moisture by pressing with heavy rollers (or, in some cases, by pounding with hammers). Then the papyrus product was dried in the sun. By the time anyone actually wrote on the papyrus, its moisture content had been largely eliminated. The papyri in question lay in an arid tomb for over 2000 years before they found their way to Kirtland, Ohio in 1835.

The photos I have repeatedly posted on this thread demonstrate that, whatever further dessication could possibly occur after the production process and 2000 freaking years of sitting in the bone dry deserts of Egypt, it clearly affects the entire papyrus uniformly (if at all!).

Besides, the argument that Cook, Smith, and Fifth Columnist appear to be attempting to advance is illogical at best and laughable at worst. They seem to be suggesting that 2000 years of aging would affect the physical dimensions of the papyrus. OK. So what? Even if they're correct (and they cannot prove it nor quantify it, even if they are) no one is attempting to determine how long the papyrus was in 200 B.C.! We're all dealing with the current state of the papyrus in an attempt to determine how long it would be NOW, were the lost part not lost. If there is aging and shrinkage, we're all dealing with it equally, and all in an attempt to determine what the rest of it would look like NOW.

Again, this entire line of argumentation advanced by Cook et al. is a diversionary sideshow that has no meaning at all.

[Fifth Columnist]

Another question:

If alleged shrinkage of the papyri supposedly affected the overall average thickness of the papyri rendering Will's measurements irrelevant, why did that same alleged shrinkage not affect your measurements of the winding widths?

I kind of doubt that papyrus "shrinks" like a cotton shirt in a dryer. I'm not actually sure how "shrinkage" affects the papyrus since I haven't read much about that specific process.

However, I think the papyrus deteriorates through processes such as decomposition, oxidation, mechanical abrasion, being smashed between two pieces of glass, etc. For example, look at the first picture shown at the link below. Can you see the particles and debris on the table? That is the kind of deterioration I'm thinking about. Material is literally falling off the papyrus. http://www.lib.umich...ystem#sec-rolls

One of the biggest causes of papyrus deterioration is exposure to humidity. One source said that some papyrus completely deteriorated in the space of a few decades after being moved from Egypt to a humid climate. The JS Papyri were in the midwest/eastern U.S. from the 1830s to the 1960s.

Another major cause of papyrus deterioration comes from improper storage methods. One of the most common storage methods was to sandwich the papyrus between two panes of glass. If the papyrus wasn't on display, it was stored in a big stack of samples, which means it was being compressed. Years and years of this kind of compression on an already delicate material will certainly affect its thickness. Will needs to find out how the JS papyri were stored for all those years to rule out compression as a significant effect.

Or, on the other hand, Will could just use the standard and widely accepted Egyptological method. You know, the one Smith/MM used. If you, Will and/or Gee want to mount a head on challenge to the standard method (the method Gee initially used until it became clear that it produced the wrong result for his apologetic to work), then that's great, but you have a high hurdle to jump.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Fifth Columnist

[Fifth Columnist]

This underscores one of the reasons that I don't believe an automated process can sufficiently compensate for the irregularities. I believe human reasoning and judgment must be brought to bear on the question. I certainly don't believe I have been able to compensate fully for the irregularities. But I believe human judgment is required to assess those irregularities and compensate as fully as possible for them. I attempted to identify multiple control segments in addition to the winding length segments themselves. I am not willing to publicly reveal all of my methodology at this point, but a few people who have participated on this thread have had the opportunity to review a draft of my article and are free to offer their opinions as to how well I achieved my goal.

Yeah, that's what I suspected you were doing. I also suspect that you are using the difference between your measured thickness and Smith/MM's effective thickness to justify your subjective winding length measurement process. It will be interesting to see you transform all this from message board bravado into actual science.

[William Schryver]

... just use the standard and widely accepted Egyptological method.

Once again illustrating the fact that you are not even remotely familiar with the subject matter. There is no such thing as a "standard and widely accepted Egyptological method.". No one has ever attempted to predict the missing length of a scroll on the basis of its surviving fragments until John Gee and now I have attempted it. There is no record of anyone attempting it. Friedrich Hoffmann proposed a method for doing it, but no one (until John Gee a few years ago) ever attempted it based on Hoffmann's proposed methodology. Again, there is no such thing as a "standard and widely accepted Egyptological method." We're breaking new ground here.

And you are exposing yourself once again as an ignorant cheer leader.

Another major cause of papyrus deterioration comes from improper storage methods. One of the most common storage methods was to sandwich the papyrus between two panes of glass.

Really? This is "one of the most common storage methods"? How do you know? Was this how the Joseph Smith papyri were stored? How do you know? Were they stored, as you wrote above: "in a big stack of samples"? How do you know?

You can't even be taken seriously anymore. You're just throwing stuff out there at this point, apparently hoping someone will be indiscriminate enough to buy into your silly speculations. It's laughable.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Yeah, that's what I suspected you were doing. I also suspect that you are using the difference between your measured thickness and Smith/MM's effective thickness to justify your subjective winding length measurement process. It will be interesting to see you transform all this from message board bravado into actual science.

You can't even speak intelligently about the subject matter. It's laughable. I won't bother engaging in any further exchange with you.

If Andrew or Chris want to attempt to address Bill's question from last night, I look forward to it.

[William Schryver]

Why would a world-renowned doctor of metrology need you to devise his measurement strategy?

I doubt he needed me to devise anything for him. It just so happens that I devised it before I found him. Once I proposed the strategy to him, he agreed that it would work perfectly.

It was actually quite amazing how the whole thing worked out. One might even say there was a bit of inspiration at work, were one inclined to believe in such things.

[William Schryver]

Uncertain,

From my assessement of Will's measurements, we're looking at a thin, tightly-wound scroll. So while there are certainly several scenarios, as you point out, the data look to me as if they represent a scroll from Will's example photos--tightly wound with little-to-no dead space in between. The measurements also point to a gradual thinning as you reach the interior of the scroll. I'm still interested in how the grape/raisen/apricot leather analogy factors that data into the equation. The roll was tightly wound and sealed at the edges with bitumen. The thickness measurements show a gradual increase as you move toward the outer windings. Does this sound like a grape or a raisen?

Cheers

I hadn't seen this post before I made my last series of posts. You touch upon the point I've been trying to make: (in the parlance of the proposed analogy) we're all dealing with a raisin. The grape is irrelevant. No one is trying to measure a raisin in order to determine the original size of a grape.

[Fifth Columnist]

Once again illustrating the fact that you are not even remotely familiar with the subject matter. <snip> Friedrich Hoffmann proposed a method for doing it, but no one (until John Gee a few years ago) ever attempted it based on Hoffmann's proposed methodology. Again, there is no such thing as a "standard and widely accepted Egyptological method." We're breaking new ground here.

And you are exposing yourself once again as an ignorant cheer leader.

As an ignorant cheerleader who is not even remotely familiar with the subject matter, I must note that it is Friedhelm Hoffman, not Friedrich.

Really? This is "one of the most common storage methods"? How do you know?

I provided the link to the Brooklyn Museum in a post above that discusses this problem.

Was this how the Joseph Smith papyri were stored? How do you know? Were they stored, as you wrote above: "in a big stack of samples"? How do you know?

Will, you are the one relying on thickness so the onus is on you to demonstrate that the way the JS papyri were stored did not adversely affect your measured thickness. Good luck.

You can't even be taken seriously anymore. You're just throwing stuff out there at this point, apparently hoping someone will be indiscriminate enough to buy into your silly speculations. It's laughable.

You can always tell when you hit a nerve with Will. He starts spewing copious amounts of this kind of stuff.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Fifth Columnist

[Mortal Man]

If I understand correctly the "effective thickness" as calculated by Smith/MM is something like the average distance between successive windings.

Divided by two pi.

That is according to Smith/MM the effective thickness is probably not the actual thickness of the papyri. If I have two papyri of the same thickness the "effective thickness" could vary quite a bit depending on things like how tightly the papyri was wrapped and imperfections "bumps" etc that may be in the papyri. Is my understanding correct?

Yes, and more importantly, they could vary quite a bit due to erosion and decay.

If indeed my understanding is correct I don't see why it is a big deal if the Smith/MM effective thickness is very different than the true thickness since the effective thickness by definition does not necessarily correspond to the actual thickness. Also since the effective thickness is an average this does not mean all windings are rigorously separated by the effective thickness some of them may be very tight and some them may be loose.

Yup

How robust is the estimated effective thickness to outliers?

For a continuous section of scroll, it becomes more robust as the windings get more widely separated. For the Hor scroll, which comes in sections, we looked at scatter in the data. Of the 8 windings, 7 fell into a very regular arithmetic pattern and 1 was an outlier. This led to three independent values of the effective thickness that were in close agreement and one that was an outlier. The outlier was caused by secondary damage to the corresponding area of the scroll. Examination of the cracks in this area brought the outlier into agreement with the rest, however we excluded the outlier from our average, since the cracks method is subjective and less accurate than the correlation method.

I initially thought the problem was most scrolls look like the example given by Will in post 51 in which the papyri is tightly wound. If indeed such scrolls are the norm than yes I would expect the effective thickness to be close to the true thickness. However MM posted an example of papyri in post 172 in which the papyri appeared to be very loosely rolled and there was considerable space between some of the windings. For such examples I have no problem believing the effective thickness will be very different and much larger than the actual thickness of the papyri.

And the scrolls may start out nice and neat but become warped and wrinkled as they age.

If there are examples of papyri both loosely rolled and tightly rolled I don't see why the fact Smith/MM calculated effective thickness is different from the actually thickness corresponds to strong evidence the Smith/MM method is flawed. I also am somewhat confused by the "fruit rollup" picture given in post 118 that has been much discussed. The difference in "effective thickness" as calculated by Smith/MM and the measured thickness as calculated by Will is ~500 microns this is not a large space about the width of three average human hairs. It would not take many imperfections in the papyri to lead to a difference in average thickness between windings of three human hairs. As such the picture shown by MM in post 172 is not an accurate representation of his model having far to much space between windings.

What Wade and Bill are missing is the fact that William has the same "problem".

William's winding lengths are:

10.48 cm

10.30 cm

10.13 cm

This corresponds to an effective thickness of 279 microns.

But William's physical thickness is 167 microns.

Should we freak out about the 112 microns of "white space" between the layers?

Should we make snarky comments about the absurdity of rolling such as scroll?

Should we scream that the papyrus thickness invalidates the formula and/or winding measurements?

No, that would only expose our ignorance.

Instead, we should remain calm, take a deep breath and know that God has given us a beautifully ordered universe. We should have faith and confidence that His laws of physics and mathematics are true. We should build our house upon the rock of reason, not the sands of speculation, that we may remain steadfast against apologetic hurricanes and fiery darts of dogma. We can be still and know that God is not in the wind nor in the fire but in the still small equations He has given us.

It just seemed in this thread much is being made of the thickness and I do not quite get how the thickness says much one way or another.

That's right, it doesn't say much one way or another.

William is busy and troubled about many things. But one thing is needful, to chose that good equation, which cannot be taken away by obfuscation and ridicule.

Yes the thickness can be used as a first order sanity check it would be strange for example if the calculated effective thickness was less than the actual thickness. But I don't see how besides serving as a lower bound on the effective thickness much can be said one way or another using the actual thickness.

Well said.

[Fifth Columnist]

No one has ever attempted to predict the missing length of a scroll on the basis of its surviving fragments until John Gee and now I have attempted it. There is no record of anyone attempting it. Friedrich Hoffmann proposed a method for doing it, but no one (until John Gee a few years ago) ever attempted it based on Hoffmann's proposed methodology.

Uh, as the ignorant cheerleader, I must also note that Hoffmann (that's Friedhelm to you Will) used the method to calculate how much of the Strasbourg papyrus is missing.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Fifth Columnist

[wenglund]

I seriously doubt the papyrus is 15,000 microns thick. I've got a 20-year-old ash tree that doesn't have bark that thick. Someone in the British Museum must be using a variant of the Cook formula in order to calculate papyrus thickness.

I agree.

However, I made some rough measurements using the full size image of the rolled up scroll and plugged them into the standardized formula used to determine spiral lengths. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the calculations are somewhat favorable to Andrew/Cook:

Diameter of scroll: 20cm

Diameter of innermost winding: 2cm

Number of windings: 100

Distance between windings: 898 m

Length of scroll: 3749cm (123 ft.)

However, we are talking here about a much thicker scroll from a different era, with more than six times the diameter of the JS papyrus, and more than 3 times the diameter of the innermost winding, with about the same number of windings according to what I calculate, though more than 5 times the windings according to Andre/Cook figures, which obviously allows considerably greater room for loose winding. So, it may be like comparing a burrito grande tortilla to a half dollar sized crepe.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

Note, most importantly, if the required 50%+ shrinkage in the thickness of the papyri over 2000+ years required by the Chris/Andrew theory had in fact occurred, we would see that shrinkage reflected in warping of the length and width, not just the reduction of the thickness.

Does your king-size waterbed turn into a twin size when you drain it?

It would be most apparent by warping of the vignettes and texts.

Do images on your old bedsheets warp as the sheets become threadbare?

The fact that the Chris/Andrew claims cannot be reconciled with the empirically measured thickness of the extant JS papyri should lead an objective observer to conclude that something is wrong with the theory, rather than claiming that something is wrong with the data.

Have you "reconciled" your bananas with your coconuts?

In your apologetic frenzy to discredit us, you are inadvertently attacking the standard methodology Egyptologists have employed for many years to measure ancient scrolls. The progression of winding lengths (or equivalently, effective thickness) has proven to be a reliable indicator of scroll length, whereas physical thickness has not. You can imagine that the disintegrating scrolls are somehow the same today as they were originally and issue absurd declarations that the "claims cannot be reconciled" but your attempts to muddy the water here simply don't square with reality.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

I believe that one of the reasons papyri survive so well in the Egyptian desert, but don't survive in wet climates is because water permits bacterial decomposition. Papyri in desert climates (like Egypt and Qumran) survive in part because they are perpetually dry, and bacteria can't cause decomposition. That's why we find lots of Greek papyri in Egypt, but almost none in Greek itself, and why we find it in the deserts of Egypt far more than in the delta.

Yes, that squares with what I've read. Thebes, in particular, is a good place for a scroll to last.