H: "But, if you look back at previous posts in the thread, you'll see that there hasn't been any mention of a calculated seked. All that's been stated is that they definitely used sekeds; and there's evidence to support this statement. Arnold has decided to employ the term "calculated", but that's just his way of expressing it; "chosen" would have been just as appropriate."


Of course there is circumstantial evidence the AE probably used seqeds as early as the OK, but I am not disputing this. The problem is with your statement that they "definitely" used seqeds in the OK and you gave as the evidence, M17, but its only an assumption based on circumstantial evidence.


H: "I'm not quoting argument from authority. What I'm quoting are the conclusions that authority has drawn from the evidence."


What evidence? - explain to me what this evidence for the "definite" use of seqeds is at M17.


All 'authorities' - interpret the evidence - so OK, show us this evidence for the use of seqeds at M17, explain what the "definite" evidence is - I think we all agree that its highly likely that seqeds were used already in the OK - but "definite" is lacking, and the lines at M17 do not provide the proof.


H: "I really don't see how the Arnold quote could possibly give rise to any misunderstanding: Quote:

One example, from a different period and location, is a construction sketch for the inclination of a pyramid at Meroe. Basically it still preserves the old method used for mastaba no. 17 at Meidum, containing horizontal parallels, a vertical line, and the sqd. Again, the sketch is drawn on a wall at some distance from the building itself." - "Building in Egypt": 12"


There is no misunderstanding here - I understand what Arnold is saying.

He is referring back to the lines at M17. I ask you to explain what the "definite" evidence for the use of a seqed is at M17, but you just keep repeating what Arnold says - but all he is saying is:


- a "calculated sqd" was transferred to the building using the inclined line drawn on the walls of the foundation trenches. This foundation line has an incline with a simple ratio of "1 cubit to 4 cubits" The problem is, he gives no evidence for a "calculated sqd" - its an assumption.


The evidence for the use of a seqed is the drawn inclined line. When it was measured it was found to have a simple ratio of "1 cubit to 4 cubits" that we know from the MK, can be expressed as sqd 1 3/4 - that is the 'evidence' - the line itself is the so called "definite" evidence'


Using the same logic, Khafra's pyramid has an incline of 3 cubits to 4 cubits which we also know from the MK can be expressed as sqd 5 1/4, so is this definite proof they were using seqeds? - of course not - without textual evidence we have no 'proof', all we can say is that perhaps a simple ratio was used - 3 along, and 4 up, or perhaps they determined the seqed, in this case sqd 5 1/4.


So what evidence is there that they "calculated the sqd" or if you prefer, they "chose" a sqd when they drew the lines at M17?


H: "I would also point out that you still seem to be arguing that seqeds were calculated, when that's simply a term used by Arnold. As has been previously noted, "chosen" would have served his purpose just as well."


No matter how you wish to "note" it, 'calculated' does not mean 'chosen'

However, I am NOT arguing that seqeds were calculated - ARNOLD states that seqeds were calculated at M17.

Quote: "Petrie's observations about mastaba no. 17 of Meidum shows what method was used to transfer the calculated sqd to the building..."


Now again, a simple request - explain to us what is the "definite" proof for the use of seqeds at M17, the "definite" proof that a "calculated sqd" or even your 'chosen' seqed was used.

Note, I am not requesting an explanation for the probable use of seqeds in the OK, but the "definite" proof they were used, especially the "definite" proof at M17.


Can we agree that 'most probably' the designers and builders used simple rise run ratio's to define inclines in the OK - or how else would they do it? - a seqed is simply a rise / run ratio expressed as a whole cubit of 7 palms to palm ratio - which is the same thing - just expressed in a different way - my only dispute is with your use of the word "definite" for the OK - probable yes, but not "definite".

CT