Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe they had inches back then. In
> fact, I'm quite certain of it.


There are those who claim an Egyptian inch. It's generally met with some astonishment and disbelief which is perfectly understandable but I guarantee if you measure any batch of Egyptian artefacts you will always find something that is sympathetic to the foot rule.

This is not to be confused with Anthony's bathroom scenario.

There are a number of reasons why these coincidences appear and they all lead back to Giza, to the tombs where the artisans laid down grids with multiples of a recognized measure. It's Petrie's Giza digit of .727 +/- .002 inches and if we set out a comparison it looks something like this:

Petrie half digit = 0.3625 - 0.3645 inches

11 x .363 = 3.993 (4 inches)
8¼ x .363 = 2.99475 (3 inches)
5½ x .363 = 1.9965 (2 inches)

Indistinguishable from the Imperial inch.

IOW we can easily get the equivalents of 2, 3 and 4 inches, and the Egyptian numbers to divide are easily accounted for because they are simply 33 and the third of 33.

There is some concern for Petrie's interpretation of the Giza digit but there is only one way to interpret the tomb grids and that's with multiples of 363. So when someone pulls out his foot rule and cries inch don't be too alarmed, it's only the Egyptian equivalent that is being recognized. Why there should be such a coincidence is another story altogether,

[www.ronaldbirdsall.com]

Graham












Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2007 10:18PM by fmetrol.