Scroll Length?

[wenglund]

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.

My eyesight is still obviously bad even after my cataract surgery several weeks ago. It looked like a large hole to me--that is, until I just now zoomed in.

Unfortunately, this new information (new to me) seems to work all the more in the favor of Andrew/Cook. Using my formula, here are the new figures:

Outer Diameter: 20cm

Innermost diameter: .636

Number of windings: 106

Distance between windings: 905.9m

Length of scroll: 3749.378 (123 ft)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

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-

Wade,

The measurements on that web page are not correct. No one ever measured the diameter of Papyrus Greenfield before it was unwound. No one has ever measured its thickness. It's not really 1.5 cm thick! That is simply preposterous. It couldn't even be rolled if it were that thick! No papyrus has ever been found that was that thick. I don't think your average papyrus stalk is 1.5 cm thick, let alone one of its strippings.

Papyrus Greenfield is widely considered the most exquisite specimen of ancient Egyptian scroll ever found. It's a stunning piece. It is very finely manufactured papyrus, nothing like some of the crude 700 micron thick tree bark stuff produced much later in Egyptian history.

You can see in this end view of it that it was wrapped right down to a center core (something that could not be done with 1.5 cm thick papyrus!):

(I was disabused of the notion that it was wrapped around an umbilicus by the gentleman with whom I corresponded at the British Museum, who noted that the photo showed that it had been wrapped right down to a small center core.)

The images you seem to believe are "exact size" are not exact size in the image you linked. Yes, the caption reads "exact size" but that only applies to whatever place that photo was first published.

In short, none of the values you are working with are correct except for the 123ft. total length value.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[Uncertain]

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 understand Will is arguing for a thin tightly wrapped scroll perhaps he is right I don't know not having read his paper. My point is I don't see why the fact the effective thickness is quite a bit bigger than the actual thickness is evidence against the Smith/MM model. Yes if you assume the scroll was tightly wrapped then you would expect little difference between the effective thickness and the actual thickness but this is exactly what Will is trying to show and hence assuming this is true to discredit the Smith/MM model is more than a little circular. In other words if Will can show the scroll was tightly wrapped then the difference between the effective thickness and actual thickness becomes relevant. But in an of itself I don't see how the measured thickness of the papyri can tell you one way or another how the scroll was wrapped.

In addition I am a little unclear on how the data indicating a thinning of the scroll as you progress toward the center of the scroll is being interpreted to indicate the scroll was tightly wound. If I understand correctly the argument is as you go toward the center the papyri becomes more protected from the elements and hence there is less separation between the layers and the papyri retains its original thickness. Is this a correct summation? I think this is a reasonable explanation of the data. I don't see however see why this explanation only applies to tightly wound scrolls. Take a loosely wound scroll as you progress to inner wrappings it still is the case inner wrappings are more protected than outer wrappings and hence it is reasonable to predict a similar pattern of inner wrappings being thinner than outer wrappings. Now it is true in a loosely wound scroll the inner wrappings will be less protected and hence you would expect a less dramatic difference in loosely wrapped scrolls than tightly wrapped scrolls but this is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one. In other words the same trend of inner wrappings being thinner than out wrappings would be expected in both loosely wrapped or tightly wrapped scrolls hence the presence of this trend is not good evidence one way or another regarding how the scroll was wrapped.

It appears to be the crucial difference is how the winding lengths were obtained. All of this talk of papyri thickness and trends in thickness as you go to inner wrappings appears to be compatible with both models.

(Edited to add It also appears to be the scroll would have to be extraordinarily tightly wrapped not to be compatible with a ~700 micron effective thickness. If we assume Wills measurements of the actual thickness are correct which I see no reason not to. Then this amounts to ~500 micron average "white space" between wrappings. This is not a large space and it would not take to many gaps to average to a ~500 micron white space. Even in Wills examples there are places with obvious gaps between windings mostly on the semi major axis of the ellipse. )

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[wenglund]

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.

Ignoring for the moment the deft move from dessication to disintegration, what, if anything, does this have to do with measuring scroll lengths--regardless of the methodology?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes

Yes

Glad you finally answered.

[William Schryver]

My eyesight is still obviously bad even after my cataract surgery several weeks ago. It looked like a large hole to me--that is, until I just now zoomed in.

Unfortunately, this new information (new to me) seems to work all the more in the favor of Andrew/Cook. Using my formula, here are the new figures:

Outer Diameter: 20cm

Innermost diameter: .636

Number of windings: 106

Distance between windings: 905.9m

Length of scroll: 3749.378 (123 ft)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I'm telling you, friend, you're working with bogus values!

Papyrus Greenfield had many more than 106 windings! It was over 37 meters long, for heaven's sake!

The scroll John Gee saw unwound in Toronto was only a little over 6 meters long, and yet it had over 100 windings.

You're working with values from a web page that is inaccurate. If you don't believe me, feel free to contact Neal Spencer at the British Museum:

Neal Spencer

Assistant Keeper (Curator)

Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan

The British Museum

Great Russell Street

London WC1B 3DG

UK

Tel: +44 20 7323 8311

Fax: +44 20 7323 8803

nspencer@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

Does your formula account for the possibility that the inner wrappings might be more tightly wrapped that the outer ones you actually measured?

No, neither does it account for the possibility that the BoA was written on microfilm and attached to Facsimile 3; it's sadly deficient in those regards.

I've not seen a description of any ancient scroll where the rate of decrease of the inner windings was significantly smaller than that of the outer windings. Furthermore, I've already stated that we assume the missing portion was wound at least as tightly as the outer portion. This is the most generous reasonable assumption to make.

The most difficult part of winding a scroll is getting it started. Sometimes you have to fold it to get it going. Since the inner windings have the smallest radius of curvature, they are the hardest to wind tightly (and, according to Hoffmann, there is always a bit of space in the core). It gets easier to wind tightly once the radius is bigger. Furthermore, the Hor scroll was bound on the outside. It is simply not reasonable to assume that the missing windings were significantly tighter than the outer windings.

Did you measure the thickness of the JS papyri?

No, neither did we measure their weight or color spectrum.

[wenglund]

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?

Actually, I did understand this. According to my calculation last week, using Will's winding lengths, I came up with an effective thickness of 275 m. This didn't alarm me in the least because the effective thickness was less than double the physical thickness. Where I became concerned is with an effective thickness that more than quadrupled the physical thickness--as in your case. Wouldn't you agree that at least at some point the disparity between effective and physical thickness may become problematic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Fifth Columnist]

Ignoring for the moment the deft move from dessication to disintegration, what, if anything, does this have to do with measuring scroll lengths--regardless of the methodology?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think I ever made the deft move you speak of. MM was referring more to dessication and I was referring more to disintegration. I think both are valid points.

This has nothing to do with measuring scroll lengths using the formula developed by Hoffmann. However, it has a lot to do with measuring the thickness of the scroll, which seems to be an important aspect of Will's methodology.

[Mortal Man]

You're only scratching the surface of the problems with the Cook/Smith winding length measurement methodology.

Yes Will, you're going to have to dig a lot deeper to figure out what's going on.

Good news, though, I have learned today that there is an initial critique of Cook/Smith that will be published in the near future.

Gee, I suppose?

I'll ask this again because it makes a huge difference. Is the Toronto scroll leather or papyrus?

[Uncertain]

Are you suggesting that no amount of space between the windings would seem problematic to you?

Not at all, what I did say is a an average ~500 micron white space between wrappings does not appear to be incompatible with examples of scrolls given in this thread.

If not, then how much space would raise concerns? Would it be double the thickness of the papyri, triple, quadruple?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see why space between windings should be at all proportional to the thickness of the papyri. In other words you appear to be claiming a space ~ twice the thickness of the papyri would be problematic. If that space is still very small ~500 microns I don't see why this is problematic or why the fact 500 microns is ~twice the measured thickness is problematic. Keep in mind this is an average so most windings could very well have a smaller space between windings with some windings having a much bigger space like is seen in the Greenfield papyri. There are spaces between windings of the Green field papyri a whole lot larger than ~500 microns if you averaged out such space over all windings an effective thickness of ~700 microns is not at all unreasonable at least so it appears judging by eye, 500 microns is still a very small space.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[William Schryver]

The most difficult part of winding a scroll is getting it started. Sometimes you have to fold it to get it going. Since the inner windings have the smallest radius of curvature, they are the hardest to wind tightly (and, according to Hoffmann, there is always a bit of space in the core). It gets easier to wind tightly once the radius is bigger. Furthermore, the Hor scroll was bound on the outside. It is simply not reasonable to assume that the missing windings were significantly tighter than the outer windings.

Absolute assertion, and disproven by the photos of the rolled-up scrolls I have posted several times:

[William Schryver]

Is the Toronto scroll leather or papyrus?

Papyrus. Very fine, thin papyrus.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Absolute assertion, and disproven by the photos of the rolled-up scrolls I have posted several times:

So let me get this straight, you don't buy into the fruit roll up either?

[William Schryver]

I don't see why space between windings should be at all proportional to the thickness of the papyri.

Maybe you should look at the photos of actual scrolls posted above and it will become more obvious to you.

(Do these people exist in an alternate universe? )

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

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.

Yes Will, each of the three fragments were cleverly twisted in exactly the same way in order to produce exactly the same distortion in their winding progressions, such that no one would notice this mischief. Even more amazing, this same twisting was somehow applied both top and bottom in every case, which to our mere mortal eyes would seem to constitute a geometrical miracle. Those Kirtland boys were clever.

[wenglund]

In short, none of the values you are working with are correct except for the 123ft. total length value.

I can accept this--I mean I was working from an internet photo using a ruler up against the monitor for heaven sakes. LOL

However, I thought it made for an interesting exercise. And, I was just trying console Cook/Smith after the beating they have been receiving here. Consider it an olive branch extended across the isle. [thumbs up]

Please note, though, that I later corrected for the inner diameter, and that my "effective thickness" measurements were 898m and 902.9m, which are considerably less than the physical measurement of thickness given by the museum for a single sheet (I don't recall if that measurement included the frame or not).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This has nothing to do with measuring scroll lengths using the formula developed by Hoffmann. However, it has a lot to do with measuring the thickness of the scroll, which seems to be an important aspect of Will's methodology.

Could you please explain in more detail how you believe it has a lot to do with measuring the thickness (effective or physical?) of the scroll (or do you mean the papyrus?)? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

Maybe you should look at the photos of actual scrolls posted above and it will become more obvious to you.

(Do these people exist in an alternate universe? )

I did indeed look at the scrolls above. Perhaps I am in an alternate universe but I don't see how those pictures show very thin papryi could not on occasion have large space between windings and conversely relativly thick papyri have small space between windings. How does the pictures of scrolls show that thin papryi must always have small spaces between windings while relatively thick papyri will have large spaces between windings? What exactly in these pictures leads you to the conclusion that thin papyri must always have small spaces between windings and will never have large spaces? In fact at least one of the pictures the green field papyri has examples of windings with quite large spaces between them.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[wenglund]

Not at all, what I did say is a an average ~500 micron white space between wrappings does not appear to be incompatible with examples of scrolls given in this thread.

I don't see why space between windings should be at all proportional to the thickness of the papyri. In other words you appear to be claiming a space ~ twice the thickness of the papyri would be problematic.

Actually, no, that wasn't what I was claiming. In truth, I was asking. I was trying to learn from you what multiple of the physical thickness in relation to the effective thickness would be the point at which it became of concern to you. I don't have much of a problem with the space being the same or even double the average effective thickness. I do become concerned when the effective thickness is more than quadruple the physical thickness.

If that space is still very small ~500 microns I don't see why this is problematic or why the fact 500 microns is ~twice the measured thickness is problematic.

Yes, it is a relatively very small space, but even at the quantum level, the distance of space can matter very much. Think about it this way: if you had a stack of 100 sheets of copy paper (each with a physical thickness of 100 microns), and were someone to suggest that there is 400 microns of space in-between each sheet (equivalent to 4 sheets of copy paper), wouldn't that raise some red flags in your mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

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?

It's the rate of decrease of the winding lengths that really counts and by "original length" we mean the length when Joseph had the scroll.

Since we can't go back in time, I guess that no one can really say for certain if the scrolls today are exactly the same length they were originally. But it's a pretty good bet that they're really close because we observe for papers, coins, bedsheets etc. that erosion/wear occurs at the surface and hence is proportional to surface area (bigger on the face of a scroll than at the ends). Roman coins today are a lot thinner than they were originally but their diameters haven't changed much. Suppose archaeologists 2000 years from now dig up your files and discover The Second Watson Letter. If written on acid paper they would find it to be a lot thinner but still pretty close to 8.5 x 11".

Edited November 15, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

When we are dealing with 0.1 cm differences, this could be potentially distort the result.

We are dealing with 4.4 mm differences in the winding lengths.

[William Schryver]

What exactly in these pictures leads you to the conclusion that thin papyri must always have small spaces between windings and will never have large spaces?

Oh, just the fact that the pictures show, quite clearly, that there is no discernible space between the windings except for the space occupied by the papyrus itself. Other than that, I can't imagine why someone would reach that conclusion.

In fact at least one of the pictures the green field papyri has examples of windings with quite large spaces between them.

???

Please do show us where the photo of the Greenfield Papyrus shows a winding with a large space between them. I sure don't see it. Nor do I see such a thing in the other photos I posted. Quite to the contrary, the photos show that the scrolls are rolled rather tightly and uniformly from the center! That's why I suggested you guys are in an alternate universe. Cook/Smith are making an argument for a scroll winding that bears no resemblance to any of these photos of rolled scrolls. Nor does it conform to the Toronto scroll that John Gee observed.

See Andrew's fruit roll-up scroll for an example of what they predict: something that has no analogue in reality.

At any rate, I have to do real work today, so I'll have to bow out of the conversation for the remainder of the day. I'll try to catch up tomorrow, since it's my wife's birthday, and we'll be going out tonight.

[William Schryver]

It's the rate of decrease of the winding lengths that really counts and by "original length" we mean the length when Joseph had the scroll.

Since we can't go back in time, I guess that no one can really say for certain if the scrolls today are exactly the same length they were originally. But it's a pretty good bet that they're really close because we observe for papers, coins, bedsheets etc. that erosion/wear occurs at the surface and hence is proportional to surface area (bigger on the face of a scroll than at the ends). Roman coins today are a lot thinner than they were originally but their diameters haven't changed much. Suppose archaeologists 2000 years from now dig up your files and discovered The Second Watson Letter. If written on acid paper they would find it to be a lot thinner but still pretty close to 8.5 x 11.

This is an evasion of Bill's question. I've come to expect this from you on this thread.

Anyway, I really have to bow out for the time being. I'll try to catch up tomorrow ...

[Uncertain]

Actually, no, that wasn't what I was claiming. In truth, I was asking. I was trying to learn from you what multiple of the physical thickness in relation to the effective thickness would be the point at which it became of concern to you. I don't have much of a problem with the space being the same or even double the average effective thickness. I do become concerned when the effective thickness is more than quadruple the physical thickness.

I don't see why the fact the space between windings is ~double the measured thickness is somehow more problematic than if the space between windings was only the measured thickness. What is important is if the space between windings is physically reasonable not what relation that has to the papyri thickness. In other words I see no reason why a thin papyri could be wrapped loosely or conversely a thicker papyri wrapped tightly.

Yes, it is a relatively very small space, but even at the quantum level, the distance of space can matter very much. Think about it this way: if you had a stack of 100 sheets of copy paper (each with a physical thickness of 100 microns), and were someone to suggest that there is 400 microns of space in-between each sheet (equivalent to 4 sheets of copy paper), wouldn't that raise some red flags in your mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes indeed it would if the sheets where laid flat one on top of another. I certainly would not expect 400 microns of space. If on the other hand the sheets were rolled up and I had seen examples of sheets with an obvious average distance between windings of greater than 400 microns. Than no it would not raise red flags to say the average space between windings is 400 microns. In other words in this thread there are examples of papryi in which the average distance between wrappings is greater than 500 microns. The green field papyri has at least this average distance between windings if not much greater. This "." dot for example is about ~600 microns in diameter there is clearly at least this much average white space between wrappings in the Greenfield papyri. In fact it would not surprise me if the example of the tightly wrapped scroll Will gave had an average white space between windings of 500 microns. With some gaps being much bigger than ~500 microns and some being much less, 500 microns is simply not a very large amount of space.

Again what is important is if the space between windings if this is a reasonable physical amount I don't see how it is at all relevant what relation this number has to the thickness of the papyri. Whether it is twice, three times or four times bigger who cares? If there are known examples of scrolls with average of 500 microns between windings this is what is important not what relation this number has to the papyri thickness.

Here is a link to various objects and their size in microns to get an idea of how large 500 microns is.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html

Best,

Uncertain