Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you are confusing is that dividing the 7 part
> cubit into 6ths did not constitute a different
> measurement system any more than dividing a 6"
> rule into 5th does.
>
> The Cubit Legon proposed for the Canon was 3 Royal
> Cubit of 7 parts from floor to hairline.

I am not confused. Legon was not proposing a six-part division of the seven-part cubit. Stating it that way is certainly confusing. Legon was proposing a division of the anatomically based cubit into six parts. The division of the cubit into 7 palms doesn't come into it.

> Each cubit in height was then divided into 6ths,
> but this did not constitute a different
> measurement system.

Yes it did. Legon gives numerous examples of monuments and objects measured in sandals. The earliest is a sarcophagus from the third dynasty. The thebit (sandal) is specifically mentioned in an inscription from the mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. The thebit is also mentioned in Papyrus Reisner from the 12th dynasty.

> As for the glyph for Cubit being a short Cubit,
> well it's not, because the glyph for 6 palms is a
> forearm and the small bird.

So what? The length of the forearm varies from 43 to 45 cm. The length of the cubit is 52.4 cm. Ergo, the length of the forearm is a short cubit.

One could argue that the cubit is derived from the length of the forearm, but they are not the same.

> The 45 or 43 cm measures were a thing used on the
> Levant, and not Egypt.

They were used in Egypt too. Priskin bases his very elegant calendrical system on the short cubit of 5 sandals.

Sahure's pyramid has a slope of 6:5. This translates to a seked of 5/6 cubits or a short cubit of 5 sandals. Unas' pyramid has a slope of 3:2 or a seked of 2/3 cubit or 4 sandals.

Lee McGiffen (Kanga)