Jim Alison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Hermoine,
>
> Thanks for linking my thread above, but it is
> really just talking about the Akhentaten boundary
> stelae, where the proposed length of the itr has
> been based on the distance between the farthest
> apart known boundary stelae, and even since my
> thread from 2003, additional boundary stelae have
> been discovered at Akhentaten that are farther
> away from each other.

The two furthest apart (in a diagonal, I might add) are A and P. They are about 28km apart. No calculation of these supports an assertion of (Egyptologists?) 20,000 cubits / iteru, nor (your) 15,000 cubits / iteru.

Fyi, in years past I have already discussed with Barry Kemp and Helen Fenwick. Do you have Murnane & Van Siclen?


> My article deals with other topics also, but the
> impetus for the article was the inscribed cubit
> rods discovered by Borchardt at Karnak. They say
> the length of Egypt is 106 itr from Elephantine to
> the northern limit of Egypt and that the length of
> upper Egypt is 86 itr and the length of lower
> Egypt is 20 itr.

That division can be attributed to the White Chapel, I believe. Special note: that's not exactly what the text on the chapel says. Can you spot it?

> If this is a N-S meridian
> measure and the dividing point between upper and
> lower Egypt is the apex of the delta, then the itr
> works out to be precisely 15,000 royal cubits.

The AE do not reference the delta apex (you knew that, right?), and even if you employ the apex in a calculation, the result is not 'precisely'.

> There are no mathematical texts or other ancient
> Egyptian inscriptions that specify the number of
> cubits in the itr.

It is implicit, and easily calculated. Eg, Edfu, comes out to about 13,500 cubits / iteru. See my article on the iteru.


> However, even though
> Egyptologists generally decline to speculate on
> matters that are not supported by philology, they
> go out of their way in this case to give lengths
> for the itr, other than 15,000 cubits. There are
> a couple of photographs of the cubit rods that
> Borchardt published that I included in my article,
> but my source on Borchardt's take of the length of
> the itr is from Gardiner in Egyptian Grammar. I
> also quote Hans Goedecke who agrees with
> Borchardt, on what I think is the same basis.
> Namely, the ancient Egyptians were not capable of
> measuring N-S meridian distances, and therefore
> the cubit rods, and other similar inscriptions
> about the 106 itr length of Egypt, were based on
> itinerary distances along the river that they say
> gives a length of 20,000 cubits for the itr. In
> order for 20,000 cubits to work, the division
> between upper and lower Egypt has to be moved a
> good bit south of the apex of the delta

(I think you meant a good distance 'north' of the apex).

, and I
> also discuss these efforts by Egyptologists in my
> article. The length of the dodecaschoinos is also
> offered as evidence of a 20,000 cubit itr, and I
> also discuss this in my article, since all of
> these arguments are used for, and I think were
> created for, the purpose of not allowing the itr
> to be a length that could support the idea the
> ancient Egyptians were capable of measuring by
> degrees.

They did not measure by degrees. Especially not the modern earth grid.