Clive: "Chris Tedder has posted his reasoning why 28 was chosen; 28 fingers divides nicely into the length of arm, but that does not occur unless the arm is outstretched and consisting of the upper and lower portion...whereas the symbol for a Royal cubit shows the arm bent...a slight problem. Is the arm measured when bent or straight? fmetrol adds his points to this concept; he realizes that a 28-segment "bent" arm would only be measured from a human frame of giant proportions, and that is out of the question."



In one of the earliest examples of D42 'forearm with palm down' from early Dyn 4, the forearm is straight with the hand slightly curved downwards with the palm of the hand facing down. Its a simple matter to place the forearm on a flat surface with the palm facing down and measure the length from back of elbow to front tip of middle finger.


The early royal funerary complexes were designed using a basic linear measure, the cubit. So how did they determine the length of their cubit? Did they measure the forearms of 11 of their subjects, and take the average?

Or, did they take the measure from a renowned warrior leader, a hero, his large stature giving him a physical advantage - the king himself, or one of his sons? or one of the elite, all enjoying a very high standard of living, a rich and varied diet - all the requirements that enabled them to reach their full height potential.


For example, a large male skeleton was found in a large double mastaba tomb in the western cemetery at Giza - the skull was of an old man. A Professor of Anatomy erroneously concluded the skull's large dimensions indicated he must have been a man of unusual mental capacity, but the point is, high status males could be very tall and would have stood out from the crowd.

Another partial skeleton from an early Dyn 4 high status burial of possibly a king, gives valuable clues to the size of a royal male. Measurements of the femur, tibia, humerus and radius indicate this person was about 176cm tall +- 5cm.

I am 180cm tall so I just come within the range of his possible height. If I place my forearm on a flat surface similar to the position of the forearm in the hieroglyphic sign for cubit, the length of my forearm from the back of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger is about 50.5cm which is to within a few cm the length of the 52.4cm cubit. In other words, 7 palms is the nearest number of whole palms that fit the length of my forearm, from the back of my elbow to the tip of my middle finger.


Or did they base the cubit on an idealized forearm? - we cannot expect the average forearm to be an exact multiple of 7 palms, just as we cannot expect the solar year to be exactly 365 days long. Nature is not that cooperative. The AE did not take into account the extra 1/4 day in their civil calendar and as a result their 365 day year of twelve 30 day months + 5 days, did not keep in sync with the seasons.

The AE calendar year was an idealized year - it was not based on the exact length of the year to the nearest 1/4 of a day, but to the nearest whole day which is why it 'wandered'. In the same way, the 52.4cm length of the cubit may have been a standardization of an 'ideal' forearm where 7 whole palms fitted exactly.


Other examples of idealized measurements are found in the AE afterlife. The important staple crops of emmer and barley cultivated by the king in his celestial paradise, were supernaturally large compared with natural crops, and were described with mathematical precision. The height of emmer in the 'Marsh of Reeds' was 7 cubits (3.7m) The stalk was 5 cubits and the ear 2 cubits. The ratio of the overall height of emmer in relation to the stalk is 7:5, the same ratio used to define the slope of one of the first true plane-sided pyramids.

The height of barley was 4 cubits (2m) The stalk was 3 cubits and the ear 1 cubit. The overall height in relation to the stalk is 4:3.

The 4:3 ratio often occurs in early Old Kingdom funerary architecture. For example a pyramid with sqd 5 1/4 defined slope (a ratio of 4:3), was a popular model. The slope of Khafra's pyramid had a 4:3 ratio. The ground plan of the funerary complex of the first king of Dyn 5, Userkaf, had a length / width ratio of 4:3 (noted by Verner, 2001: 274-5). The slope of his pyramid was defined by sqd 5 1/4, and the slopes of three Dyn 6 pyramids were defined by sqd 5 1/4. The sarcophagus chamber in Khufu's pyramid had a 10:20 (1:2) cubit proportion for the 2- dimensional floor area and a 15:20:25 (3:4:5) cubit proportion defined the 3-dimensional space.


The cubit used for the royal funerary complexes may have been part of this idealized world. We know from Dyn 6 textual evidence, the pyramids were thought in some mystic way, to be a manifestation of the king himself - the finished structure itself was divine. The royal funerary complex was an integral part of the king's afterlife that was an idealized, perfect world, and perhaps it was thought that only a 'perfect', idealized linear unit could be used to design and build it.

CT