Hi Hermione,


H: "If there are similarities between a "construction sketch" at Meroe, and a "construction sketch" at Meidum, and if the former is seqed, then it must follow that the latter is also."


Meroe, is not in Egypt, its in northern Sudan, and the royal tombs were built about 2300 years after M17, and after the Egyptian civilization had collapsed.


The two inclined lines at Meroe are "lightly incised on the outer wall of the offering-chapel attached to pyramid no. 8 in the northern group". The lines are probably part of a drawing of the vertical cross section of pyramid no. 2. The drawing also shows the 48 courses of the pyramid as 49 horizontal lines, and 11 divisions are shown along the lowest line - the last 4 divisions are extended vertically up to about the 31st course. The centre vertical axis of the pyramid is also drawn.


That's it - no evidence of seqeds - its just a working drawing, drawn to a scale of about 1:10


According to Edwards, the double inclined line has an angle of incline of 72.75 degs, which approximates the AE sqd 2 1/4 (72.18 degs), which is similar to pyramid no. 2 that has an angle of incline of about 72.80 degs.


However, according to the measurements given in Hinkel's restoration (ZÄS 108), the angle of the lines in the drawing is 73.3 degs, which approximates the AE sqd 2 + a fraction of a finger.

So the similarity between M17 and the Meroe drawings is that both are construction drawings, drawn as an aid to the builders - neither however have any "definite" or "irrefutable" proof of the use of seqeds - seqeds are not mentioned at all.



H: "If the two are placed side by side, with no indication of the date in each case, it would not be possible to say that A is seqed, but that B isn't. Arnold identifies a number of instances of "construction sketches" that are similar to the one at Meidum, so there's quite a reasonable data set."


The construction sketches do not have any indication of seqeds, so if they are placed side by side, the only indication is that they are all construction drawings.



H: "Unless, of course, you don't concur with the view that the "construction sketch" at Meidum is seqed ... But, in that case, what alternative explanation could there be, and what would be the evidence for it?"


For anyone to have an opinion that the "construction sketch" at M17 is "definitely", or is proof of a seqed, there would need to be some evidence of the use of seqeds in the OK. The only evidence we have is circumstantial, most pyramid slopes approximate seqed values in the OK.


However Lauer did an exhaustive study of a much larger set of 25 pyramids that seems to corroborate his theory the AE were using a simple rise over run method. Rossi in her study has some awkward seqeds of sqd 4 + 2/3 palms and sqd 7 + 2/3 palms in the mix, but otherwise, mostly seqed values correspond to the angles of inclines in her study, but she has a tolerance of 1/2 a degree, so just about any angle will fit a seqed value.


My personal view after much study of AE architectural design, is that its most likely the AE in the OK were using a simple rise over run ratios - 1 up and 2 along; 4 up and 1 along etc. But this is basically what a seqed value is - a rise over run ratio expressed as the horizontal run in palms to a rise of a whole cubit of 7 palms. The only question for me is, were they expressing a rise over run ratio as a seqed value already in the OK - most likely, but we have no "irrefutable" proof of this.

CT