Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the royal cubit was "most" important as a
> ""concept"" why then would they have need to
> divide the royal cubit into extremely small
> fractions?
The actual length of the royal cubit was not necessarily an absolute standard - it could and did vary somewhat from project to project. Petrie documents in his Inductive Metrology (p. 50-55) that he found it to have a range of 20.42 to 20.84 inches. In his Pyramids and Temples (p. 179) he lists a range used in OK pyramid construction of 20.51 inches to 20.71 inches. It is often thought that these, and other such, 'discrepancies' (from the supposed target value of 20.625 inches) are due to either error, sloppiness, pharaonic discretion, regional variations, etc. In some instances this might be the case, but in others it is likely not.
For instance, why the discrepancy in cubit length between that used in the King's Chamber and that used for the G1 exterior base length - factors that one would think to have been two of the most important measures of the structure entire? In fact, Petrie notes (p. 178) a range of cubit length within G1 of from 20.58 inches to 20.765 inches.
Perhaps the Red Pyramid offers a more insightful example. In his published survey results, Josef Dorner lists a pyramid base length of 219.08 meters (p. 26), which he then states equates to a base length 418 cubits. He has simply assumed this amount, and states as much, because it allows for a cubit length of .524 meters. I should think it fairly likely, however, that the pyramid was understood by its builders to have a base length of 420 cubits, utilizing a cubit length of .5216 meters. A look at Dorner's own measurements for the interior chambers of this pyramid will show that a cubit length of .5213 meters was the length of choice. The point here being that small changes in cubit length can have an important numerical effect when multiplying to scale, and so these seemingly minor 'discrepancies' can be quite impactful in understanding the architect's intent. Did the architect intend an understood pyramid base length of 420 cubits - or did he not? And if he did, which I think all but certain, then what other imperatives lay behind the decision to not use a cubit length nearer the 'mean' value of .524 meters? As I say, this is the real question in seeking to understand these structures - that is, how to identify the truly formative underlying imperatives at play within their design.
I know I did not directly answer your question, but if I understand you correctly it is like asking why should we keep in place our system of paper and coin money when the value of a dollar, yen, pound, peso etc. can fluctuate daily.