Jon: "If you've only got 360 or 361 cubits then you're missing the more recent survey's. Here John Legon's comment on Dorner's recent one"


Petrie's survey is ok. According to Petrie the mean length of the sides is 7459" (189.460m) which is to within about 8cm (3") 362 cubits. However, Petrie assumed, the intended length was 360 cubits as AE architects normally worked to multiples of 10 cubits for long lengths, but this means the cubit used was 0.5263m rather than the usual 0.5236m.

Although 362 cubits is more consistent with the surveys, it does seem an odd measure. One explanation is that the designers were using squares where the diagonal was more or less defined by a whole number. For example, a square with sides 362 cubits has to within a few centimeters, a 512 cubit diagonal. Interestingly the distance from the apex of the small subsidiary pyramid to the apex of the large pyramid is also 362 cubits.

The distance from a side of the pyramid to the enclosure wall is about 99 cubits , but why 99 and not 100? - again the designers may have been interested in squares where the diagonal can be expressed as a whole number - a square with sides 99 cubits has to within a few millimeters, a 140 cubit diagonal. 2 x 140 = 280, which is the distance from the enclosure wall to the centre of the pyramid. 280 cubits also defined the height of Khufu's pyramid.

CT