Missing Scroll: How To Get To An Accurate Measure?

[USU78]

I saw a butterfly yesterday. It was awesome. But the reality is I have no way to prove it. I didn't choose to photograph it. Millions of events happen every second without any evidence and can not be proven under any circumstance. The more we close our minds to possibilities, the more we will miss truth. Truth doesn't always lie with evidence. Truth can be hidden behind lack of recording, lack of believe, or lack of faith.

Yet evidence is all we have to go on: and your description of your first-hand observation is pretty dang good evidence of the loveliness you encountered yesterday. I am so going to miss the swallowtails . . .

[CA Steve]

168 microns is about the thickness of two sheets of normal copy paper?

[CA Steve]

If 10.5 cm represents the outer winding then that would result in a roll whose diameter would be 3.34 cm or about 1.3 inches or less than the diameter of an empty roll of toilet paper.

Edited to delete MM's post.

Edited September 7, 2012 by CA Steve

[DavidB]

mormonmason,

10.5cm length of outermost winding would be the circumference. From the circumference you need to calculate the diameter. The diameter - inner core and outer - are the measurements used to calculate length of rolled material.

[DavidB]

With outer diameter of 34mm

Inner core of 30mm

Thickness of 168microns

I get 1 meter.

[MormonMason]

Boy, I sure did "screw the pooch" on the calculations using that math site, didn't I?!? Thanks for pointing it out. It was one of those moments where I went, "What???" I was about to respond and then my eyes caught what I had done. I had only one word to say to myself that moment, as I began erasing my initial response: "D'oh!"

Well, you know what they say? Don't drink and derive. Just kidding. But it is kind of like that when you try to do math when tired, especially when you are so tired that you just want to take the lazy way out and let something else do the calculation. And, then you miss setting the paremeters correctly... Well, at least I see it that way.

I'll recalculate when I've had sufficient rest this weekend. As to the rest of what I wrote, I still stand by it.

Could we get a complete list of thickness measurements by papyrus sheet, though, while I wait for after the weekend? Pretty please?

[Cobalt-70]

The best study on the issue of the scroll length is this very good analysis by Cook & Smith, based on actual measurements of damage patterns on the surviving Hor scroll. They determine that there could be no more than 56 cm of missing scroll.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[happy]

The best study on the issue of the scroll length is this very good analysis by Cook & Smith, based on actual measurements of damage patterns on the surviving Hor scroll. They determine that there could be no more than 56 cm of missing scroll.

Based on some heavy assumptions.

[USU78]

The best study on the issue of the scroll length is this very good analysis by Cook & Smith, based on actual measurements of damage patterns on the surviving Hor scroll. They determine that there could be no more than 56 cm of missing scroll.

GIGO

[wenglund]

The best study on the issue of the scroll length is this very good analysis by Cook & Smith, based on actual measurements of damage patterns on the surviving Hor scroll. They determine that there could be no more than 56 cm of missing scroll.

Until a more formal response is published (Will Schryver has had just such a response in the offing for about a year now, but the critics have undertaken a smear campaign to prevent publication of his work in reputable journals), here is a thread that critiques aspects of the Cook/Smith analysis--at points quite humorously:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

The best study on the issue of the scroll length is this very good analysis by Cook & Smith, based on actual measurements of damage patterns on the surviving Hor scroll. They determine that there could be no more than 56 cm of missing scroll.

Unfortunately, it is crap and contrived. I recognized it as I was reading the paper before it was published and I confirmed it for myself when I tried my hand at applying it to known papyri that were missing the ends of their scrolls. They apparently worked hard to adapt previous formulae to make their equation work to find a length that would agree favorably with the position taken by Baer, followed by Ritner. It would appear that there is also a problem with assumptions as to how rolling papyri worked in ancient Egypt as opposed to what they did in Greece and elsewhere.

I have taken that formula and tried to make it work with other known Egyptian papyri. I cannot get it to work for the life of me, no matter what I do. There is obviously a flaw in the methodology somewhere with this formula and methodology because I have tried and I have spoken with friends to ask them to get others to try to do something with it, and it seems that we and they all get failed results. It doesn't seem to work as expected and is woefully inaccurate for the purposes intended, in that situation. If it only "works" for one scroll and no others it is a mathematical fail. It calls into question whether it even works at all for the scroll to which they applied it.

There is that and the fact that there are no actual measurements of the thickness of the papyri across sections, which is what I was looking and hoping for.

Edited September 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

Unfortunately, it is crap and contrived. I recognized it as I was reading the paper before it was published and I confirmed it for myself when I tried my hand at applying it to known papyri that were missing the ends of their scrolls. They apparently worked hard to adapt previous formulae to make their equation work to find a length that would agree favorably with the position taken by Baer, followed by Ritner. It would appear that there is also a problem with assumptions as to how rolling papyri worked in ancient Egypt as opposed to what they did in Greece and elsewhere.

I have taken that formula and tried to make it work with other known Egyptian papyri. I cannot get it to work for the life of me, no matter what I do. There is obviously a flaw in the methodology somewhere with this formula and methodology because I have tried and I have spoken with friends to ask them to get others to try to do something with it, and it seems that we and they all get failed results. It doesn't seem to work as expected and is woefully inaccurate for the purposes intended, in that situation. If it only "works" for one scroll and no others it is a mathematical fail. It calls into question whether it even works at all for the scroll to which they applied it.

There is that and the fact that there are no actual measurements of the thickness of the papyri across sections, which is what I was looking and hoping for.

I have to admit that the Cook-Smith calculations are beyond my meager math skills.. Why is the lack of papyri thickness measurements critical to the Smith-Cook formula?

[MormonMason]

I have to admit that the Cook-Smith calculations are beyond my meager math skills.. Why is the lack of papyri thickness measurements critical to the Smith-Cook formula?

Because of the way papyrus shapes itself and compresses the fibers in the inner windings during a tight-winding process and storage without repeated opening and closing. If there is enough of a difference it can lead to errors of assumption about the air gaps between the windings and the actual length of the windings on the portion now missing. This can be off a meter or more if this isn't watched for or accounted for under various circumstances. Papyrus, once compressed, does not thicken too appreciably over time in moister air. If you want to expand it you have to wet it and keep it wet for a bit. The drier the fibers the less this is possible. The structure of the cellulose tightens and strengthens in shape over time unless enough water vapor is present and bacteria and chemicals decompose the cellulose.

Don't get me wrong. The Hoffman formula can be off at points as well. Neither Hoffman nor Cook-Smith can give perfectly accurate measurements. Both can give approximations.

However, Cook-Smith can be shown to be substantially off when attempting to use it on other papyri, even to the point of calculating too short a length for a papyrus that really is longer than the Cook-Smith formula calculates for a papyrus roll. At least the Hoffman formula gives a better estimation, in my view.

I mentioned that to someone I know, who then contacted Professor Gee about the problem. The person I know had tried to see whether Cook-Smith could be used on other papyri and give accurate or at least close estimated results and was failing to be able to do so. Gee confirmed the same thing before publication of his recent introductory piece concerning the use of the formulae in attempting to determine length of missing papyrus on a roll of papyrus, or even length of a papyrus, period.

They may be able to refine it but it will take considerable labor, time, experimentation, and loads of paperwork and permissions to obtain beforehand. Neither of them are professional Egyptologists so that will be a very difficult proposition for them to undertake. Perhaps Ritner will want to help play with the formulae and refine methodology for a while. Who knows what he will come up with?

[Cobalt-70]

Until a more formal response is published (Will Schryver has had just such a response in the offing for about a year now, but the critics have undertaken a smear campaign to prevent publication of his work in reputable journals), here is a thread that critiques aspects of the Cook/Smith analysis--at points quite humorously:

Maybe. But until Jesus descends from on high and defends Will's work against the anti-Mormon cabal, the Cook-Smith paper is the only one that has been published in a real journal.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[MormonMason]

... published in a real journal.

That part of your sentence and Dialogue form an oxymoron of sorts. Now, if the Cook-Smith paper had been published in, say, either Revue d'Égyptologie or Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, or something like those, you might have had something to your remarks. You could then have said that their paper was presented in a "real" journal. Publishing in Dialogue doesn't give it more credibility than the above journals would have had they been published there.

From the standpoint of Egyptology, none of the articles have been peer-reviewed before publication in a 'real' journal from the standpoint of Egyptology. I mean, really...

Dialogue claims to be peer reviewed, as does the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (now going by Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture but still claiming peer-review). But, how many critics argue against the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies being a real journal? What makes Dialogue any more 'real' than Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture? Both claim peer-review. Both are 'Mormon' productions.

How is the former more 'real' than the latter? This explanation I have got to see...!

Edited September 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

Because of the way papyrus shapes itself and compresses the fibers in the inner windings during a tight-winding process and storage without repeated opening and closing. If there is enough of a difference it can lead to errors of assumption about the air gaps between the windings and the actual length of the windings on the portion now missing. This can be off a meter or more if this isn't watched for or accounted for under various circumstances. Papyrus, once compressed, does not thicken too appreciably over time in moister air. If you want to expand it you have to wet it and keep it wet for a bit. The drier the fibers the less this is possible. The structure of the cellulose tightens and strengthens in shape over time unless enough water vapor is present and bacteria and chemicals decompose the cellulose.

Don't get me wrong. The Hoffman formula can be off at points as well. Neither Hoffman nor Cook-Smith can give perfectly accurate measurements. Both can give approximations.

However, Cook-Smith can be shown to be substantially off when attempting to use it on other papyri, even to the point of calculating too short a length for a papyrus that really is longer than the Cook-Smith formula calculates for a papyrus roll. At least the Hoffman formula gives a better estimation, in my view.

I mentioned that to someone I know, who then contacted Professor Gee about the problem. The person I know had tried to see whether Cook-Smith could be used on other papyri and give accurate or at least close estimated results and was failing to be able to do so. Gee confirmed the same thing before publication of his recent introductory piece concerning the use of the formulae in attempting to determine length of missing papyrus on a roll of papyrus, or even length of a papyrus, period.

They may be able to refine it but it will take considerable labor, time, experimentation, and loads of paperwork and permissions to obtain beforehand. Neither of them are professional Egyptologists so that will be a very difficult proposition for them to undertake. Perhaps Ritner will want to help play with the formulae and refine methodology for a while. Who knows what he will come up with?

Thickness, as well as all the other factors you mention, will affect the length of the papyri but I am asking where in the formula of either Cook Smith or Hoffman is it used? According to what I read in the link in Wengland post above, both formulas are based on winding lengths, and do not use thickness as part of the calculation. Maybe it is an oversimplification of those formulas but they appear to predict the overall length of a Archimedean shaped object based on the known winding lengths of the first few windings.

Ritner has already reviewed the scroll length issue and estimates that it would have measured about 150-155cm in his book about the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri. He actually references the Cook and Smith article in his book as evidence that the Hor scroll could not have contained a further text.

[MormonMason]

It isn't. That is part of the problem. Their work makes an assumption of the average thickness that was in their minds at the time they worked out the methodology but does not address it in print. They took tracings through mylar sleeves rather than working with the papyri directly. Hoffman's formula was worked out using an actual roll of papyrus directly handled, so far as I can recollect; Cook-Smith through mylar sleeves and overestimating thickness and making assumptions that Egyptian scrolls were rolled the same way as Greek scrolls. Do you not see these as potential methodological problems? If not, why not?

Edited September 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

It isn't. That is part of the problem. Their work makes an assumption of the average thickness that was in their minds at the time they worked out the methodology but does not address it in print. They took tracings through mylar sleeves rather than working with the papyri directly. Hoffman's formula was worked out using an actual roll of papyrus directly handled, so far as I can recollect; Cook-Smith through mylar sleeves and overestimating thickness and making assumptions that Egyptian scrolls were rolled the same way as Greek scrolls. Do you not see these as potential methodological problems? If not, why not?

I do not see it as a problem if the formula is based on winding lengths nor do I think the work of Cook-Smith makes any assumptions about the thickness of the scroll. Here is why. I can take a long piece of paper and a long piece of carpet and roll them both up. I can then take a marking pen and draw a line from the outer edge to the center of both rolls to create winding points and then unroll them. If I measure the length from one mark to the next I would get a winding length. If I measure the first two or three winding lengths I can establish a pattern that I can use to predict the total maximum length of the roll with out having to know anything about the thickness of either item. In fact the diameter of the object and its thickness would be irrelevant though I could determine what the diameter would be as well as the average distance between the roll layers. I really think the crux of the issue between Cook-Smith and others is how/where they are measuring the winding lengths.

The parties seem to agree that the first winding length is about 10.5 cm and that the inner length is around 2.5 cm. So, for example, if the first few windings were listed at 10.5 cm, 10 cm & 9.5 cm and the rest of the windings were reduced by the same factors then it would take 18 windings to get to 2.5 cm and result in a scroll that was 110.5 cm. Now if you take the first few windings as 10.5 cm, 10.25 cm & 10 cm and extrapolate down to 2.5 cm it takes 33 windings and results in a scroll that is 214.5 cm long. How you measure those winding points makes a big difference.

Edited September 8, 2012 by CA Steve

[MormonMason]

And, yet, an actual scroll that is about 7 meters in actual measured length gets from two-thirds to three-fourths of its true length shaved off by the Cook-Smith formula, depending upon how many windings of the scroll are counted and measured. You are right about that. How those "winding points" are measured does make a big difference.

There is something else of interest here. The scroll that Gee tested using both the Hoffman and Cook-Smith formulae was about 7 meters in length unrolled, and about 3 centimeters in diameter when still rolled. The Horos scroll containing the Book of Breathing was just over 3.34 centimeters in diameter based upon the first winding length of 10.5 centimeters. Based upon that measurement, how much scroll do you think could have fit within that size if a known Egyptian scroll of about 7 meters was enclosed within about 3 centimeters rolled in the first winding?

Edited September 8, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

And, yet, an actual scroll that is about 7 meters in actual measured length gets from two-thirds to three-fourths of its true length shaved off by the Cook-Smith formula, depending upon how many windings of the scroll are counted and measured. You are right about that. How those "winding points" are measured does make a big difference.

There is something else of interest here. The scroll that Gee tested using both the Hoffman and Cook-Smith formulae was about 7 meters in length unrolled, and about 3 centimeters in diameter when still rolled. The Horos scroll containing the Book of Breathing was just over 3.34 centimeters in diameter based upon the first winding length of 10.5 centimeters. Based upon that measurement, how much scroll do you think could have fit within that size if a known Egyptian scroll of about 7 meters was enclosed within about 3 centimeters rolled in the first winding?

I have no idea what would be physically possible when it comes to rolling up papyri scrolls. I would also be interested in why and how such a scroll would even be added to a funerary text. Are you asking about placing a separate scroll within another scroll or adding radically different content to the middle of a single scroll?