Scroll Length?

[Olavarria]

What is the state of the debate?

Is there a response to Smith and Cook in the works?

Will it be done as a rap battle?

Edited November 7, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[William Schryver]

What is the state of the debate?

Is there a response to Smith and Cook in the works?

Will it be done as a rap battle?

Pedro,

I attempted to PM you concerning your questions, but apparently you cannot currently receive any PMs. PM me when you get a chance.

[Olavarria]

I attempted to PM you concerning your questions, but apparently you cannot currently receive any PMs. PM me when you get a chance.

It should work now, my cache was full.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Robert F. Smith]

What is the state of the debate?

Is there a response to Smith and Cook in the works?

Will it be done as a rap battle?

I don't know what sort of battle it will be, or even whether there will be a battle, but it should be clear that there is nothing standing in the way of a straightforward understanding that there is plenty of room on the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus for the entire Book of Abraham. As Mike Rhodes pointed out years ago, the typical Ptolemaic period Book of Breathings roll was about 320 cm long, and the Hor Book of Breathings would have taken up about half that length (156 cm).* Since recent measurements show that the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus must have been even longer than the average mentioned by Rhodes, that leaves a lot of space for the Book of Abraham.

We know that much older texts were regularly copied onto later papyri -- in addition to whatever text was already on the papyrus -- and that writing could be done on both sides of papyri.

*Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (FARMS, 2002), 4.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know what sort of battle it will be, or even whether there will be a battle, but it should be clear that there is nothing standing in the way of a straightforward understanding that there is plenty of room on the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus for the entire Book of Abraham. As Mike Rhodes pointed out years ago, the typical Ptolemaic period Book of Breathings roll was about 320 cm long, and the Hor Book of Breathings would have taken up about half that length (156 cm).* Since recent measurements show that the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus must have been even longer than the average mentioned by Rhodes, that leaves a lot of space for the Book of Abraham.

We know that much older texts were regularly copied onto later papyri -- in addition to whatever text was already on the papyrus -- and that writing could be done on both sides of papyri.

*Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (FARMS, 2002), 4.

What ever the length, it would seem it is longer than the Cook/Smith estimates.

However I understand there is new research being done or has been done and I look forward to the results.

[Mortal Man]

it should be clear that there is nothing standing in the way of a straightforward understanding that there is plenty of room on the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus for the entire Book of Abraham.

Sure, why not? Except for the rules of mathematics, the law of mass conservation and the topological limitations of our three-dimensional universe, I'd say that there is nothing preventing the original scroll of Hor from being long enough to span the entire U.S. highway system.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mortal Man

[J Green]

Haven't been here the past few days, as work and other commitments have kept me busy.

A few weeks ago I was reviewing Will's presentation and some of the older related threads on both boards. In the process I had a few questions, so I asked Will, and he was gracious enough to answer them patiently. I also asked Chris, Mortal Man and George Miller a few questions on the other board, and George was kind enough to call me and give me a tour of the process from his perspective. As part of my conversation with Will, he let me read his paper on the scroll length, and since Pedro asked what the status of the debate is, I thought I would share my perspective on one key difference in the conversation.

If I remember correctly, Chris and Mortal Man use the effective thickness of each winding of the scroll as a key measurement. They estimate the actual thickness but regard it as largely irrelevant due to dead space, embalming salve, debris, hummus dip spilled by scribes, and other material that would create separation between the windings. The effective thickness accounts for this space and along with the winding measurements gives us key factors with which to estimate the total length of the scroll and, thus, the missing portion. Mortal Man has posited online (and both authors in the paper) that loss of moisture would have caused the papyrus to shrink, leading to the nearest shrunken Nile Delta-oid model, whereby Rigdon is demonstrated to be the actual author of the Hor scroll. They estimate the missing scroll portion to be around 50 cm. Obviously, a short paragraph can't do their thesis justice, and if I have misrepresented their argument (or left out any good wise cracks), I hope they won't be too mocking in their corrections.

Will's approach argues that the actual thickness matters and that along with winding length measurements, it can be used through the Hoffman formula to calculate the length of a scroll rolled in an archimidean spiral. For those who haven't followed the debate, the Hoffman formula is a complex mathematical tool used to prove that the salamander-like canopic jar under the lion couch is really a forgery. Alternatively, it's also the formula Egyptologist Friedhelm Hoffman used to estimate the length of missing papyrus in another case. Will estimates the missing portion at just over 400 cm.

Will was able to actually measure the thickness in multiple loci, resulting in a range of between 123 and 220 microns of thickness, depending on location and degree of separation, and he uses the average measurement from the thickest portion in the Hoffman formula, thereby ensuring fairly conservative results. What was interesting to me was that there was a gradual decrease in the thickness of the papyrus the further into the interior of the scroll you get, suggesting a dense, tightly-wound scroll that was exerting pressure on the inner portion. Since the outer layer is thicker than the inner layer in a way that connects to the spiral compression, I'm interested as to how this phenomenon impacts Mortal Man's concern about scroll shrinkage. But I'm not an expert. (I'm just the cook!) Will's paper is accessible and persuasive.

There are other key aspects of both papers. Winding lengths are important and calculated differently, etc. But to summarize every area would be difficult, especially while I'm eating hummus. I focused on one key difference to show how that difference contributes to arriving at very different scroll length estimates. But I've enjoyed the conversation so far and look forward to Will's paper being published soon so that the next phase of the discussion can take place between people who actually know what they're saying.

Cheers

[volgadon]

I think the thread took a far more interesting turn with J's talk of hummus.

[blackstrap]

And so we see the wisdom of the ancients ,who buried the documents instead of entrusting them to fickle humans.Sad isn't it that such an important message could lie undisturbed for centuries and then disappear within a couple of decades.I do wonder what critics would find to argue about if the entire papyri still existed.

[J Green]

I think the thread took a far more interesting turn with J's talk of hummus.

What would make it even more interesting is a sample from the Hummus Hut.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Coincidentally, I had hummus for lunch today. I made it myself, though, so I'm not sure how it would compare to that from the Hummus Hut.

[Calm]

I think the thread took a far more interesting turn with J's talk of hummus.

I know it got me salivating.

[Bill Hamblin]

What would make it even more interesting is a sample from the Hummus Hut.

Layla's in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem. yum!

[volgadon]

Best humus is in Majdal Shams.

[Calm]

Can we start sharing recipes now?

[Robert F. Smith]

Sure, why not? Except for the rules of mathematics, the law of mass conservation and the topological limitations of our three-dimensional universe, I'd say that there is nothing preventing the original scroll of Hor from being long enough to span the entire U.S. highway system.

You forgot to include the Law of Entropy, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Moreover, Physicist Brian Greene now tells us that the true nature of reality is probably two dimensional -- us mortal men are living an illusion, from which we can only extricate ourselves by utilizing the esoteric measurements of the Great Pyramid.

[William Schryver]

Haven't been here the past few days, as work and other commitments have kept me busy.

A few weeks ago I was reviewing Will's presentation and some of the older related threads on both boards. In the process I had a few questions, so I asked Will, and he was gracious enough to answer them patiently. I also asked Chris, Mortal Man and George Miller a few questions on the other board, and George was kind enough to call me and give me a tour of the process from his perspective. As part of my conversation with Will, he let me read his paper on the scroll length, and since Pedro asked what the status of the debate is, I thought I would share my perspective on one key difference in the conversation.

If I remember correctly, Chris and Mortal Man use the effective thickness of each winding of the scroll as a key measurement. They estimate the actual thickness but regard it as largely irrelevant due to dead space, embalming salve, debris, hummus dip spilled by scribes, and other material that would create separation between the windings. The effective thickness accounts for this space and along with the winding measurements gives us key factors with which to estimate the total length of the scroll and, thus, the missing portion. Mortal Man has posited online (and both authors in the paper) that loss of moisture would have caused the papyrus to shrink, leading to the nearest shrunken Nile Delta-oid model, whereby Rigdon is demonstrated to be the actual author of the Hor scroll. They estimate the missing scroll portion to be around 50 cm. Obviously, a short paragraph can't do their thesis justice, and if I have misrepresented their argument (or left out any good wise cracks), I hope they won't be too mocking in their corrections.

Will's approach argues that the actual thickness matters and that along with winding length measurements, it can be used through the Hoffman formula to calculate the length of a scroll rolled in an archimidean spiral. For those who haven't followed the debate, the Hoffman formula is a complex mathematical tool used to prove that the salamander-like canopic jar under the lion couch is really a forgery. Alternatively, it's also the formula Egyptologist Friedhelm Hoffman used to estimate the length of missing papyrus in another case. Will estimates the missing portion at just over 400 cm.

Will was able to actually measure the thickness in multiple loci, resulting in a range of between 123 and 220 microns of thickness, depending on location and degree of separation, and he uses the average measurement from the thickest portion in the Hoffman formula, thereby ensuring fairly conservative results. What was interesting to me was that there was a gradual decrease in the thickness of the papyrus the further into the interior of the scroll you get, suggesting a dense, tightly-wound scroll that was exerting pressure on the inner portion. Since the outer layer is thicker than the inner layer in a way that connects to the spiral compression, I'm interested as to how this phenomenon impacts Mortal Man's concern about scroll shrinkage. But I'm not an expert. (I'm just the cook!) Will's paper is accessible and persuasive.

There are other key aspects of both papers. Winding lengths are important and calculated differently, etc. But to summarize every area would be difficult, especially while I'm eating hummus. I focused on one key difference to show how that difference contributes to arriving at very different scroll length estimates. But I've enjoyed the conversation so far and look forward to Will's paper being published soon so that the next phase of the discussion can take place between people who actually know what they're saying.

Cheers

Joey,

Thanks for your remarks. A couple clarifications, if I might:

When it comes right down to it, the essential measurements are the winding lengths. We can predict the total original length of the scroll using those measurements alone. But the measurement of the papyrus thickness supplies us with a control that can confirm the accuracy of the total length predicted by the trend of the descending winding length measurements.

The measurement of the thickness of the papyrus, in conjunction with the measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll, would enable us to calculate the maximum possible original length of the scroll. When we have multiple winding length measurements (in the case of the scroll of Hor, I argue that it is only possible to obtain a reliable measurement for the first three windings) we are then enabled (using a variant of the Hoffmann formula) to more accurately determine the actual original length of the scroll, and that length measurement permits us to calculate what Cook/Smith term the "effective thickness" of the papyrus, or the actual space between each winding of the rolled up scroll. Cook/Smith predict an "effective thickness" of (IIRC) something in the neighborhood of 700 - 800 microns, whereas Schryver/Slack* predict an effective thickness much nearer to the actual, known thickness of the papyrus. Based on several previous statements, Cook/Smith reject my report of our thickness measurements, even though they argue that the actual physical thickness is largely irrelevant. In other words, they seem to be saying that, even if the actual physical thickness of the papyrus is more in the neighborhood of 150 microns, that merely means the scroll was so loosely rolled as to produce an "effective thickness" of 700 - 800 microns. That said, they seem to believe that the actual physical thickness of the extant papyrus is around 700 - 800 microns, and that our measurements are simply incorrect. I am quite confident, however, that It shall be seen that our measurements of the papyrus thickness are correct, and that we employed a reliable methodology in order to determine the physical thickness.

The dispute, in the end, will come down to the question of whose winding length measurements are accurate. I believe, and you are now in a position to judge better, that the winding length measurements I supply are based on a sound and simple methodology. I believe the Cook/Smith measurements are flawed.

I also believe I was unnecessarily conservative, and that the average thickness value I employed (167 microns) does not conform to the actual original thickness of the papyrus. The undamaged areas of the scroll consistently returned thickness measurements in the neighborhood of 125 microns. Our measurements indicate that the diameter of the rolled up scroll was a little more than 3.3 cm. This produces a total original scroll length of a little over 6 meters.

John Gee recently viewed (in Toronto, Ontario) the unrolling of a Ptolemaic-era scroll. I don’t have his final report in front of me, so I’m going on memory here, but its diameter before being unrolled was ~3.3 cm (just like the scroll of Hor). When unrolled, it was a little over 6 meters in length.

The standard length of a Ptolemaic-era papyrus roll was 3.2 meters. Two of them joined together (a common practice) would be 6.4 meters.

Our measurements seem to bear out the conclusion that the scroll of Hor consisted of two standard lengths of papyrus joined together, just like the scroll Professor Gee observed unrolled in Toronto.

* = Edwin Slack, who assisted me greatly in terms of the mathematical "heavy lifting".

Edited November 9, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

When it comes right down to it, the essential measurements are the winding lengths. We can predict the total original length of the scroll using those measurements alone.

Bingo

But the measurement of the papyrus thickness supplies us with a control that can confirm the accuracy of the total length predicted by the trend of the descending winding length measurements.

No, the measured thickness does not "confirm the accuracy" of anything. It only serves as a lower bound on the "effective thickness." A measured thickness less than the effective thickness tells you nothing about scroll length.

The measurement of the thickness of the papyrus, in conjunction with the measurement of the outermost winding of the scroll, would enable us to calculate the maximum possible original length of the scroll. When we have multiple winding length measurements (in the case of the scroll of Hor, I argue that it is only possible to obtain a reliable measurement for the first three windings) we are then enabled (using a variant of the Hoffmann formula) to more accurately determine the actual original length of the scroll, and that length measurement permits us to calculate what Cook/Smith term the "effective thickness" of the papyrus, or the actual space between each winding of the rolled up scroll.

The measured thickness does not appear anywhere in the Hoffmann formula. It has nothing to do with the Hoffmann formula. To use it in the Hoffmann formula is simply invalid. You may as well use the thickness of your nostril hairs in the formula.

The effective thickness in the Hoffmann formula is a derived parameter. It has a fixed definite relationship to the winding lengths (see equation 4). You can't simply replace it with something else without violating the fixed relationship and invalidating the whole derivation. If your friend Edwin understands the math, then tell him, "Mortal Man says that the thickness we plug into Hoffmann's formula must satisfy equation 4."

I sort of regret calling the "T" parameter the "effective thickness." I think this has led to much confusion. There is actually no need to even define it, since you can plug equation 4 into equation 3 and define the length of the scroll solely in terms of the winding lengths. I culled it out because I thought it would make it easier for people to think about the problem in those terms. It is merely a convenient parameterization of the problem. It should not be confused with the measured thickness of the papyrus and the name should not imply that the two thicknesses are somehow interchangeable. One is apples, the other is oranges.

Cook/Smith predict an "effective thickness" of (IIRC) something in the neighborhood of 700 - 800 microns,

701 microns

Most of the Dead Sea papyrus scrolls are about 800 microns thick.

whereas Schryver/Slack* predict an effective thickness much nearer to the actual, known thickness of the papyrus.

The effective thickness is not predicted, it is derived from the winding measurements.

Based on several previous statements, Cook/Smith reject my report of our thickness measurements, even though they argue that the actual physical thickness is largely irrelevant. In other words, they seem to be saying that, even if the actual physical thickness of the papyrus is more in the neighborhood of 150 microns, that merely means the scroll was so loosely rolled as to produce an "effective thickness" of 700 - 800 microns. That said, they seem to believe that the actual physical thickness of the extant papyrus is around 700 - 800 microns, and that our measurements are simply incorrect. I am quite confident, however, that It shall be seen that our measurements of the papyrus thickness are correct, and that we employed a reliable methodology in order to determine the physical thickness.

The accuracy of your thickness measurements is irrelevant to the scroll length calculation.

The dispute, in the end, will come down to the question of whose winding length measurements are accurate.

Bingo

I believe, and you are now in a position to judge better, that the winding length measurements I supply are based on a sound and simple methodology.

As far as I can tell, you simply tried different anchor points until you got the result you wished. If you look at the curves in our paper, where we overlap the windings, you'll see that visually selecting points, which appear to match, is virtually guaranteed to give large errors. And picking 3 in a row (in order to get two consecutive windings) is even more problematic. You have to match the whole curve, not just individual points, to get accurate results. You also need to check for consistency right to left and top to bottom.

I believe the Cook/Smith measurements are flawed.

Did you read our paper? Did you check our data? What specifically is flawed?

A research paper needs to be based on more than testimony, unless it's going to the FARMS Review.

I also believe I was unnecessarily conservative, and that the average thickness value I employed (167 microns) does not conform to the actual original thickness of the papyrus. The undamaged areas of the scroll consistently returned thickness measurements in the neighborhood of 125 microns. Our measurements indicate that the diameter of the rolled up scroll was a little more than 3.3 cm. This produces a total original scroll length of a little over 6 meters.

I'm glad to see you took my suggestion and reworked your estimate to get the length needed for the BoA.

John Gee recently viewed (in Toronto, Ontario) the unrolling of a Ptolemaic-era scroll. I don’t have his final report in front of me, so I’m going on memory here, but its diameter before being unrolled was ~3.3 cm (just like the scroll of Hor). When unrolled, it was a little over 6 meters in length.

I once saw a bolt of embersilk that was really long.

What can Gee do with a Fruit Roll-Up?

The standard length of a Ptolemaic-era papyrus roll was 3.2 meters. Two of them joined together (a common practice) would be 6.4 meters.

You may need to link a few more together to get them to fill two entire rooms of the Mansion and/or Nauvoo houses.

Ask yourself, "What would Charlotte do?"

Our measurements seem to bear out the conclusion that the scroll of Hor consisted of two standard lengths of papyrus joined together, just like the scroll Professor Gee observed unrolled in Toronto.

Maybe Abraham was from "Ur of Toronto".

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mortal Man

[J Green]

Thanks for the clarifications, Will. The way you took the winding measurements seemed pretty sound to me, although I'll be the first to admit I have no expertise in this area. I believe Smith/Cook traced the scroll on a transparency laid over the scroll, then adjusted digital copies to the tracing, then adjusted for camera angle, topping it off with a formula to adjust for error. Yours was fairly straight forward, and the two-winding measurement (green line) appeared to be a good control on the three-winding measurement, which was more important. And your thickness measuements that point to a progressive thinning toward the interior of the scroll imply a compactness and density that would appear to contradit an 800-micron effective thickness when the actual thickeness is only 150 microns, right? I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that there would be much winding tension present if 650 out of the 800 microns per winding were dead space.

There was another difference in approach beetween the two that I think is worth noting. Chris/Cook mention in their paper that they are sacrificing accessibility to include the math as the main part of the article. Whereas you include all the math but put it in an appendix at the end. Your paper focused on the thickness and the winding and the importance of these measurements and then it became a simple bit of math at the end. It could be checked, but it wasn't the focus of your paper. the different approaches there are interesting.

In any case, thanks again for the read. I hope it's published soon so that I can watch the conversation from the sidelines with my bowl of hummus, which is where I belong.

Cheers

[Bill Hamblin]

The way to resolve part of this problem is to use the rival methods on actual papyri of know length. My understanding is that Schriver and Gee (and others) have used their method on papyri of known length with good accuracy, while Smith and Cook have not.

[William Schryver]

The way to resolve part of this problem is to use the rival methods on actual papyri of know length. My understanding is that Schriver and Gee (and others) have used their method on papyri of known length with good accuracy, while Smith and Cook have not.

I think I know what you're talking about, and it is related to the Toronto scroll I talked about above. I actually didn't have anything to do with what happened, and I don't even claim to understand what was done. But as I understand it, Professor Gee came up with a way to test the Cook/Smith methodology (very complex), the Friedrich Hoffmann methodology (moderately complex), and the Schryver/Slack methodology (fairly simple) against a scroll of known dimensions. If I'm not mistaken, he intends to report his results along with the publication of my article. I don't know how soon that will occur.

[Mortal Man]

The way to resolve part of this problem is to use the rival methods on actual papyri of know length. My understanding is that Schriver and Gee (and others) have used their method on papyri of known length with good accuracy, while Smith and Cook have not.

A better test would be to roll up a sheet of papyrus into a scroll of known length, apply damage to both ends, unroll the scroll, cut it in half and send the outer portion to the contestants without telling them the original length. Then see who returns the closer estimate for the whole scroll. Neither Schryver nor Gee has done this. Send me at least 3 outer windings and I'll tell you the length to within 10%.

[Bill Hamblin]

A better test would be to roll up a sheet of papyrus into a scroll of known length, apply damage to both ends, unroll the scroll, cut it in half and send the outer portion to the contestants without telling them the original length. Then see who returns the closer estimate for the whole scroll. Neither Schryver nor Gee has done this. Send me at least 3 outer windings and I'll tell you the length to within 10%.

Have YOU actually tried this?

[William Schryver]

A better test would be to roll up a sheet of papyrus into a scroll of known length, apply damage to both ends, unroll the scroll, cut it in half and send the outer portion to the contestants without telling them the original length. Then see who returns the closer estimate for the whole scroll. Neither Schryver nor Gee has done this. Send me at least 3 outer windings and I'll tell you the length to within 10%.

From what I understand, the Cook/Smith methodology did not perform well. (Again, I don't understand how it was tested. I was only told that it was tested against the Toronto scroll and that it predicted a length less than 25% of the actual.)

As I recall, you also flatly claimed that a wound papyrus scroll only 3.3 cm in diameter could not possibly measure over 6 meters when unrolled. Do you still stand by that claim?

Edited November 9, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

A better test would be to roll up a sheet of papyrus into a scroll of known length, apply damage to both ends, unroll the scroll, cut it in half and send the outer portion to the contestants without telling them the original length. Then see who returns the closer estimate for the whole scroll. Neither Schryver nor Gee has done this. Send me at least 3 outer windings and I'll tell you the length to within 10%.

You need to add another factor to your test in order to make it analogous to the scroll of Hor: the damage to both ends must be highly irregular, making it very difficult to establish common recurring points for your winding length measurements.