I don't need anymore of your "argument".
All of your "argument" is simply conjecture. He's not a legal invention mumbo-jumbo expert, so his choice of words has to be taken into the context --- all of which you ignore.
I laid out the facts: He still has no prior knowledge of the ancient process, still has no known ancient dye source, and no known expectation or results prior to the start of his process. The process was or is as patentable as someone who figures out a new process to make a new alloy from steel.
So --- you can't invent and and you can't convince.
Think what you like. A discussion of basic legal principles is hardly conjecture simply because you don't understand it. Notice, this article is several years old, but there is no patent. Why do you think that is?
patent