Scroll Length?

[Bill Hamblin]

It's pretty astonishing that MM has explained this over and over and you still don't get it. The only measurements that matter are the winding measurements. MM and Chris traced the actual papyri to get their winding measurements. The derived an estimate of the thickness from the winding measurements, but the thickness is really not relevant to the question about the length of the scroll (yes, I understand it sets an upper limit on the length of the scroll, but that does not tell us its actual length).

No, I do not believe that if you take two rolls of toilet paper with the same circumference--with one having paper that is twice as thick as the other other (the kind I like)--that the length of the toilet paper will be the same in both rolls. This seems absolutely certain to me.

The fact that Smith/Cook have not actually measured the JS papyri, had not applied their methodology on any known papyri, do not take the thickness of the papyri into account, and reject the measurements of known papyri rolls that don't match their theory leads me to reject their claims.

Given the same circumference, the actual length of the scroll will be dependent on two variables, the thickness of the papyri, and the tightness of the winding. This seems absolutely obvious to me. The fact that Smith/Cook must reject this to make their theory work seems to invalidate their theory.

[Minos]

If he'd measured full windings instead of half windings, he might have made it all the way through the scroll.

If this scroll really is over 6 meters in length then I guarantee you its first winding is over 20 cm.

I think you are confused by the term "magical papyri".

Now tell us about their invisible papyrus!

Will, simply quoting invented numbers over and over again does not make them valid. Anybody can do it. Here, I'll give you an example.

The thickness of the Hor papyrus at various loci is (in microns):

684

678

693

598

623

589

645

635

621

.

.

.

See how easy that was?

If you want to be a clown find another thread that isn't trying to respectfully discuss a serious topic. Mockery won't be tolerated in this one.

[J Green]

No, I do not believe that if you take two rolls of toilet paper with the same circumference--with one having paper that is twice as thick as the other other (the kind I like)--that the length of the toilet paper will be the same in both rolls. This seems absolutely certain to me.

The fact that Smith/Cook have not actually measured the JS papyri, had not applied their methodology on any known papyri, do not take the thickness of the papyri into account, and reject the measurements of known papyri rolls that don't match their theory leads me to reject their claims.

Given the same circumference, the actual length of the scroll will be dependent on two variables, the thickness of the papyri, and the tightness of the winding. This seems absolutely obvious to me. The fact that Smith/Cook must reject this to make their theory work seems to invalidate their theory.

Agreed.

The measurements indicate an average thickness of 167 microns, with progresive thinning and less separation as you move toward the center. This points to a thin, tightly-wound scroll. Contrast that with an "effective thickness" of 700 microns. If the actual thickness is 167 (and likely thinner), then an "effective thickness" of 700 indicates a good deal of dead space between windings and thus a very loosely-wound scroll, ergo less scroll. It all apears connected to me. Scrolls are like ogres--they've got layers!

Edited November 14, 2011 by J Green

[William Schryver]

Agreed.

The measurements indicate an average thickness of 167 microns, with progresive thinning and less separation as you move toward the center. This points to a thin, tightly-wound scroll. Contrast that with an "effective thickness" of 700 microns. If the actual thickness is 167 (and likely thinner), then an "effective thickness" of 700 indicates a good deal of dead space between windings and thus a very loosely-wound scroll, ergo less scroll. It all apears connected to me. Scrolls are like ogres--they've got layers!

I think it should be rather obvious to most readers that "effective thickness" is an effectively meaningless term. In order for the Cook/Smith thesis to have merit, the actual physical thickness of the papyrus must at least be in the neighborhood of 700 microns, otherwise there is no way it could have been rolled up. Cook's paper/fruit roll-up illustration ought to make that much perfectly clear.

Of course, Cook realizes this, and that's why he is working so hard to discredit both my report of the thickness measurements as well as John Gee's report of the Toronto scroll.

[Mortal Man]

Can you give a reference for this claim?

Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), 194-197.

After discussing the characteristics of thinner leather scrolls he states:

...if the material involved is 0.8 mm papyrus, the increase or decrease [from one winding to the next] is always about 5 mm.

One can measure this arithmetic progression with exactitude in all of the larger Qumran scrolls.

Then, after some more discussion of leather scrolls he goes on to state:

Papyrus scrolls from the Qumran caves also are regularly from a rather rough, less expensive base material. Accordingly, the measurements increase [going outward] or decrease [going inward] here by about 5 mm from one turn of the scroll to the next; i.e., on average more than in the case of the leather scrolls.

Given these considerations, we may draw a conclusion concerning the length of the various scrolls, from a strictly physical standpoint, a papyrus scroll is usually much bulkier than a leather scroll with the same text. It follows, then, that shorter texts would tend to be copied on papyrus in Qumran times, while leather was preferred for longer texts. Thus, if one finds fragments of a papyrus scroll from Qumran, one may assume as a matter of course that the scroll they come from was relatively short.

...

...there are shorter scrolls which had a length of only about 1.5 or 2 m divided into, for example, 12 or 13 broader columns or about 20 smaller columns, If they were rulled with the beginning of their text in the outer layer of the scroll, they were not as tightly wrapped as the larger scrolls. The result is that the distances between corresponding points of damage in the innermost layers of these scrolls are greater than in the larger scrolls.

We measured a decrease of about 4 mm from one winding to the next, top and bottom, for all of the extant Hor fragments. This is pretty close to the 5 mm Stegmann quotes for the Qumran papyrus scrolls.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Mortal Man

[wenglund]

MM has repeatedly stated as much, but Bill doesn't seem to get it.

Here is what we do get. While the thickness of the papyri isn't a variable factored into MM's formula, it unavoidably is a byproduct of, and/or a factor in testing the results of, his formula.

Keep in mind that MM has been tossing out the debatable effective thickness figure of 701 microns for a reason. And, perhaps for similar reasons, he has also been expressing all sorts of doubts about Will's thickness measurements.

So, it is not as though MM's formula eliminates papyrus thickness as a legitimate bone of contention.

[Edit: Oops...I just now noticed the Will and Bill beat me to this punch]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), 194-197.

After discussing the characteristics of thinner leather scrolls he states:

Then, after some more discussion of leather scrolls he goes on to state:

Whether or not the Qumran scrolls were produced on inferior papyrus product is irrelevant. The Herculaneum scrolls (Greco/Roman era) averaged 150 microns, as I cited above. The Toronto scroll (Greco/Roman era) that was recently unrolled was even thinner. The scroll of Hor is also ~150 microns, notwithstanding your fond wishes that it isn't.

[wenglund]

It's pretty astonishing that MM has explained this over and over and you still don't get it. The only measurements that matter are the winding measurements. MM and Chris traced the actual papyri to get their winding measurements. The derived an estimate of the thickness from the winding measurements, but the thickness is really not relevant to the question about the length of the scroll (yes, I understand it sets an upper limit on the length of the scroll, but that does not tell us its actual length).

Here is what you evidently don't get. The thickness of the papyrus is a critical factor not only in setting the upper limit, but in testing the validity of MM's formula and measurements. That is why it is being feverishly discussed here--and this because actual measurements of the papyrus thickness draw into serious question MM's formula and/or his and Chris' winding measurements.

[Edit: Again, oops...I just now noticed the Will and Bill beat me to this punch]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

If I understand it correctly (and I admittedly might not) the formula presumes that the differential between the length of each winding accounts for thickness. This assumes, however, that the tightness of each winding of the entire papyrus is constant. That is a huge assumption to make, especially when it is based on actual measurements of only the outermost three windings. It is quite possible that the inner windings were very tight and the outer windings were looser.

[William Schryver]

Here is what you evidently don't get. The thickness of the papyrus is a critical factor not only in setting the upper limit, but in testing the validity of MM's formula and measurements. That is why it is being feverishly discussed here--and this because actual measurements of the papyrus thickness draw into serious question MM's formula and/or his and Chris' winding measurements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no reason to believe the Cook/Smith formula to calculate the total length is flawed. From what I understand, that is the easy part.

No, I believe their formula to calculate the winding lengths is where one will find the flaw. One need only examine their methodology as they describe it to realize there are several elements subject to error, beginning with the way they obtained their data (manually tracing the edges of the papyrus).

[Bill Hamblin]

Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), 194-197.

After discussing the characteristics of thinner leather scrolls he states:

Then, after some more discussion of leather scrolls he goes on to state:

In other words, the thickness variable does matter, right?

[William Schryver]

If I understand it correctly (and I admittedly might not) the formula presumes that the differential between the length of each winding accounts for thickness. This assumes, however, that the tightness of each winding of the entire papyrus is constant. That is a huge assumption to make, especially when it is based on actual measurements of only the outermost three windings. It is quite possible that the inner windings were very tight and the outer windings were looser.

I believe this is absolutely true. And given the fact that (in my judgment) we can only reliably measure the first three windings (and possibly the sixth), that means that any calculated estimate based on the outer windings is going to understate the total length to some degree. That is part of the reason I believe the actual original length of the scroll of Hor was the length of two standard papyrus rolls (320 cm) spliced together--a total of 640 cm.

[Fifth Columnist]

Whether or not the Qumran scrolls were produced on inferior papyrus product is irrelevant. The Herculaneum scrolls (Greco/Roman era) averaged 150 microns, as I cited above. The Toronto scroll (Greco/Roman era) that was recently unrolled was even thinner. The scroll of Hor is also ~150 microns, notwithstanding your fond wishes that it isn't.

Will, have you identified a representative sample of scrolls from the relevant period or are you simply trying to show that was one or two scrolls that were thin at the same time?

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

A feature that is quite noticeable is the great thickness of certain papyri of the Late Period or Greco-Roman period. There are certainly only two layers but the strips themselves must have been sliced very thickly. It is widely accepted that the Greek style of reed pen (which in the Ptolemaic period quickly ousted the traditional Egyptian rush pen - even, eventually, for the writing of Demotic) was likely to puncture the thinnest qualities of papyrus, and that this led to a general increase in the thickness of papyrus. However, this characteristic has also been noted in papyri from a rather earlier period.

Will needs the papyrus to be very thin to support his subjective, photograph based winding measurements. The thickness sets the outer bound for Will's measurement so he needs it to be small. MM and Chris's winding measurements were performed on a tracing of the actual papyrus and the windings were identified using an objective mathematical algorithm. I think the latter is a much better methodology than the one used by Will.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Fifth Columnist

[Mortal Man]

So, where did you get your measurements?

From the papyri in the Church Historian's Vault.

The only real question left is: how thick are the JS papyri.

No, that is a red herring for reasons I'll explain shortly. You cannot get any reasonable estimate of length from the current thickness of the papyrus. Note that Gee does not mention thickness anywhere in his report on scroll length. Neither does Hoffmann use it anywhere in his paper. No competent Egyptologist would ever attempt to use it for reasons I'll explain (yet again) shortly. The only reason William is now trying to force it into the winding formula is because he can't get the requisite length any other way.

Andrew says Will and Gee are lying about this.

I have never accused anyone of lying. Stop misquoting me.

Will has also provided average thickness of papyri from ancient Egypt indicating average thickness of 135-150 microns.

Will has claimed, without showing us any details whatsoever, that the thickness of the Hor papyrus is somewhere between that of Michael Watson's stationary and Carla Ogden's fax paper.

At this thickness, the JS papyri roll would have been long enough to include the BOA, right?

No, not even if you assume that the thickness of an Autumn leaf remains the same two millenia after it has fallen to the ground.

Andrew claims the JS papyri are very thick, but it is not clear how he obtained his figures. Can you give us (or cite a reference) for the thicknesses you claim?

As far as our paper is concerned, we never made any claim whatsoever about thickness, other than that the original thickness could not have been greater than 701 microns. I've stated repeatedly than any thickness, past or present, less than 701 microns is not inconsistent with our results. The papyrus, as it currently sits in the vault, could be exactly 1 micron thick without impacting our results in any way.

[William Schryver]

Will, have you identified a representative sample of scrolls from the relevant period or are you simply trying to show that was one or two scrolls that were thin at the same time?

As has been perfectly demonstrated, I've actually done much than that: I discovered a way to measure the thickness of the papyrus of scroll of Hor, and then I recruited an expert to do it. The average thickness of that papyrus is, as I have reported numerous times, 167 microns, which just so happens to be consistent with many other scrolls from the Greco/Roman period, including dozens discovered at Herculaneum, and the scroll unrolled in Toronto in 2009.

Will needs the papyrus to be very thin to support his subjective, photograph based winding measurements.

My measurements are not based on photographs. I will leave it to others to decide how "subjective" my measurements are. I provide detailed evidence of my methodology. John Gee has now utilized a different methodology to measure the windings. It confirms mine.

And I don't "need" the papyrus to be thin. The papyrus simply is thin. That is a verifiable, empirical fact.

The thickness sets the outer bound for Will's measurement so he needs it to be small.

Again, I don't "need" the papyrus to be thin. The papyrus simply is thin. That is a verifiable, empirical fact.

MM and Chris's winding measurements were performed on a tracing of the actual papyrus and the windings were identified using an objective mathematical algorithm. I think the latter is a much better methodology than the one used by Will.

How do you know? You don't what methodology I used. How do you know if it is "better" or "worse"? Furthermore, until just recently, the Cook/Smith methodology for acquiring the winding lengths has not been examined by anyone with the expertise requisite to do so. How can you then know if it is "better" or "worse" than anything else. Perhaps your prejudices "need" their methodology to be better, and therefore you pronounce it so?

[William Schryver]

From the papyri in the Church Historian's Vault.

More accurately: from hand tracings of the papyri, and then human measurements of those tracings input as data into a formula of questionable reliability.

/snip remainder of evasive, diversionary post/

As I have stated repeatedly, papyrus thickness is not necessary to calculate scroll length, but it is a very good control for any estimate of scroll length. Unfortunately for your estimate of scroll length, the actual physical thickness of the papyrus indicates a flaw in your methodology. That, of course, is why you have been working so hard to discredit our measurements of the papyrus thickness. It is clear you understand the implications of those thickness measurements.

[Mortal Man]

Fischer actually did measure the papyri, but Andrew thinks they must be lying about it because the measurements of the papyri are thinner than his guess of how thick they should be.

If Fischer can provide sufficient verification and validation of his technique then I will accept his results.

If Fischer can take an apricot, slice it in half, set in out on his deck all summer, measure its thickness with a micrometer and sufficiently document his methodology, then I will accept those results as well.

[William Schryver]

The papyrus, as it currently sits in the vault, could be exactly 1 micron thick without impacting our results in any way.

Except that you would need a whole lot more fruit roll-up in order to produce a facsimile of the scroll predicted by your methodology.

[William Schryver]

If Fischer can provide sufficient verification and validation of his technique then I will accept his results.

For the record, it's "Fisher".

And I'm confident our methodology (which, truth be told, I devised) will be proven competent and its results verifiable.

[William Schryver]

If Fischer can take an apricot, slice it in half, set in out on his deck all summer, measure its thickness with a micrometer and sufficiently document his methodology, then I will accept those results as well.

Spoken like an old Davis County boy.

As one whose house, growing up, was built in the middle of an apricot orchard south of the Farmington Cemetery, your very mention of apricots brings back bad memories of apricots rotting on the back lawn; apricots I had to rake up, scoop into a wheelbarrow with a shovel, and then dump into a rotting heap of apricot stink. It's only been in the past few years that I've been able to eat apricots again ...

But speaking of apricot leather, I believe my mother made some batches whose thickness was in the neighborhood of 700 microns. Maybe your formula would work for apricot leather.

ETA: And don't remind me of when my step-father tried to make apricot wine in the garage one year, and my curiosity got the better of me and I ventured to sample it ...

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

In other words, the thickness variable does matter, right?

It matters when it's as thick as Andrew needs it to be. If it's not that thick, then it doesn't matter. That's how it's "variable."

[Mortal Man]

The thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary value in order to calculate the length of the scroll.

Ahhhh, another precious moment of clarity.

What it is, however, is a very excellent control on the methodology employed to calculate the length of the scroll.

Only if you went back in time and measured the thickness just before winding it up. If you wound it very carefully and very tightly, then the physical thickness probably wouldn't be much less than the effective thickness. If you were sloppy then the two measurements could be very different. The only control that the (original) physical thickness provides is a lower bound on the effective thickness. Nothing is certain beyond that.

As Andrew's clumsy attempt to illustrate what your scroll would like has amply demonstrated to the readers of this thread, your methodology predicts a scroll that simply could not be.

Our methodology, which is the same methodology that Egyptologists everywhere apply to ancient scrolls, reveals the state of the scroll when it was first wound up; i.e., before the gradual dessication process and other aging effects caused it to wrinkle and deform.

Notice the substantial gaps that develop during this process.

Take the Fruit Roll-Up as an example. Notice how it makes a nearly perfect spiral. Now let it sit for two millenia and look at it again. Does the spiral look as nice? Now unroll it and set it out in the July sun for a week or two. Do you notice any changes? Now cut it up and put it in a box for 132 years and then finally measure the thickness of the fruit. Is it as juicy and delicious as it was just out of the box?

This is why Andrew has also attempted to cast doubt on Professor Gee's report of the Toronto scroll that, much like the scroll of Hor, had a rolled-up diameter of ~3.3 cm and unrolled to over 6 meters.

Is this a leather scroll?

Edited November 14, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Chris Smith]

More accurately: from hand tracings of the papyri, and then human measurements of those tracings input as data into a formula of questionable reliability.

Wrong. The tracings were digitized and converted into single-valued functions. The digitized functions were checked against the tracings for accuracy. No human measurements were involved.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will needs the papyrus to be very thin to support his subjective, photograph based winding measurements. The thickness sets the outer bound for Will's measurement so he needs it to be small. MM and Chris's winding measurements were performed on a tracing of the actual papyrus and the windings were identified using an objective mathematical algorithm. I think the latter is a much better methodology than the one used by Will.

Oh the irony of this post. I think some one in this thread needs the papyrus to be a certain thickness. I think it might be the fruit roll up crowd that needs it to be so thick?? Edited November 14, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[William Schryver]

Only if you went back in time and measured the thickness just before winding it up. If you wound it very carefully and very tightly, then the physical thickness probably wouldn't be much less than the effective thickness. If you were sloppy then the two measurements could be very different. The only control that the (original) physical thickness provides is a lower bound on the effective thickness. Nothing is certain beyond that.

Our methodology, which is the same methodology that Egyptologists everywhere apply to ancient scrolls, reveals the state of the scroll when it was first wound up; i.e., before the gradual dessication process and other aging effects caused it to wrinkle up.

Take your Fruit Roll-Up for example. Notice how it makes a nearly perfect spiral. Now let it sit for two millenia and look at it again. Does the spiral look as nice? Now unroll it and set it out in the July sun for a week or two. Do you notice any changes? Now cut it up and put it in a box for 132 years and then finally measure the thickness of the fruit. Is it as juicy and delicious as it was just out of the box?

Andrew, this is complete speculation, and you know it! You have no reason to suppose nor evidence to demonstrate that there is any decrease in papyrus thickness due to "gradual dessication process" or "other aging effects" or anything else. Your suggestion that any of these asserted "factors" would make any substantial difference is 100% speculation.

The image you provide of Papyrus Greenfield and the images I have provided of another unrolled scroll in the British Museum attest no evidence of an inordinate amount of "empty space" between each winding of papyrus:

Rather, what we see is a very tightly wound scroll. We can see layer upon layer of very thin papyrus.

Your talk about "gradual dessication" and "aging effects" is a smokescreen. You cannot quantify anything on that basis, and you know it. However, I can. And I have.

Edited to clarify one statement.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver