Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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..."
>
But this question has been dealt with before (e.g., [
www.hallofmaat.com]). You are still talking about "calculating": but, surely, if the question was addressed previously, this is a straw man argument.
>
> 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".
I see no reason why "probably" should be preferable to "definitely" in this context. After all, you have more or less agreed with the statement in my previous post:
Quote
But there are papyri that show the seqed being used for pyramid slopes. There are also later examples of in situ "construction sketches" for pyramid slopes; IOW, evidence that the seqed was being used in the field, on site. There are similar "construction sketches", dating from the 4th dynasty, that also show slopes. But you seem to be arguing that the latter aren't seqeds?
Again ... it is now surely up to you to provide evidence to substantiate your assertion that the Meidum "construction sketch" isn't seqed.
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me