Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Graham: "Saqqara ostracon. The bent arm, from my
> metrological studies, indicates the common cubit,
> the straight line beneath is not a palm sign and
> the curved-like markings are not fingers. The tomb
> grids of Giza are laid out according to a unit
> which is the equivalent of .363 inches and so too
> are the five instructions on the Saqqara ostracon
> only in different combinations, combinations
> however which are easy to relate to."
>
>
>
> The five dimensions on the Dyn 3 Saqqara ostracon
> were written with a reed brush with signs
> different from the more familiar inscribed
> hieroglyphs. The translation I gave is after
> Gunn, ASAE 26, figs. 1 and 2. Unless you are an
> expert in Old Kingdom cursive hieroglyphs /
> hieratic, you need to be very cautious about any
> private interpretation you come up with.


Not really. All you have to do is track down Gunn's article to see the original photograph which shows the curve in two parts and ask the question "why"


> Graham: "The curve of the Saqqara ostracon has
> nothing to do with a full circle for it is clearly
> flattened at the top. The curve is in two parts.
> Both parts are however related to each other
> through simple geometry. There are no x,y
> co-ordinates at Saqqara and it is not the first
> instance of such."
>
>
>
> Perhaps your solution has a better fit, but I drew
> the curve using the specified dimensions in
> cubits, palms and fingers for each vertical line,
> according to Gunn's translation, and assuming the
> space between the vertical lines is a cubit, an
> arc with a radius of 6 cubits closely approximates
> the curve - considering its only a sketch, it
> seems to confirm that Gunn's translation of the
> signs is more or less correct.


It's more than a sketch for the larger part of the curve is an arc that belongs to a quarter circle. It's very precise and thicker than the rest of the curve. which has been drawn freehand. What's more the larger part of the curve ends exactly where geometry predicts that it should.


> note: cubit, palm, finger dimensions for vertical
> lines converted to fingers
>
>
>
> Graham: "This business of common cubit, royal
> cubit hinges on a correct interpretation of the
> early bent arm sign. On the best evidence we have
> the early Egyptians were typically short 5ft 5" -
> 5ft 9" with an armspan of approximately 18 inches.
> There is evidence that both the Indus and
> Mesopotamian civilizations also had long and short
> cubits. The longer, the royal, as Herodotus
> correctly reported, is "three finger breadths"
> more which is supported by any human anatomy you
> care to consult. We only have three practical
> fingers to measure with. The cubit rods unearthed
> also show this multiple of three as I have
> repeatedly shown. Cubits of 28 are a late
> addition and Ahmes the scribe, however celebrated
> he might be, had lost touch with the original
> metrology assigned to the measuring rod. Rods of
> 28 "more or less equal" divisions are in fact
> fakes, votive rods, gifts to the temple."
>
>
>
> How knowledgeable was Herodotus on Early Dynastic
> / Old Kingdom cubits?

Herodotus was a lot more knowledgeable than we are for he was at the scene comparing his cubit (the common Greek metrios) to theirs.


> An inundation level in Khufu's reign is 3(?)
> cubits, 6 palms, 3 1/2 fingers (trans. Strudwick
> 2005), which means the cubit had more than 6 palms
> - most likely 7 palms - if the cubit had only 6
> palms, it would read 4 cubits, 3 1/2 fingers.

Can you tell me more? Are there glyphs available. Does Strudwick give any and what's the question mark refer to.


> How could there have been only 3 fingers to a palm
> when inundation levels for Khufu's reign has a
> record with 3(?) cubits, 6 palms, 3 1/2 fingers -
> if the palm had only 3 fingers it would read 4
> cubits, 1/2 finger.

I didn't mention a palm of three fingers. What I said was ... the difference between cubits.

>
> An Early Dyn record of 3 cubits 5 palms 3 fingers
> is also consistent with a palm of 4 fingers. If
> the palm had only 3 fingers it would read 3
> cubits, 6 palms.

Tell me more. An illustration if possible.

Graham



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2008 11:46PM by fmetrol.