Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hrst1 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Now you're claiming that, for the Royal Cubit,
> one
> > has to add a 'fist' to the length of the
> forearm?
> > The forearm length you claimed to equate to the
> > Royal Cubit?
>
> Yup. I was wrong. Folks here reminded me of it
> and I checked references. I don't have more than
> a passing interest in measurements and
> misremembered it.
>
> > Tell me, does one add the 'fist' to the end of
> the
> > fingertips or to behind the elbow?
>
>
> A palm, actually. It's actually a regular cubit
> plus the width of the ruling pharaoh's palm,
> according to this source:
> [www.bksv.com]
>
> I did correctly remember the "seven palms."
> [egypt-museum.com]
>
> [www.touregypt.net]
>
> I find these credible based on the names, the
> spelling of the names, the measurements on the
> rods (palms, fingers) and associated artifacts -
> including the math in the Rhind Mathematical
> Papyrus.as well as their relatively poor (compared
> to the Babylonians) astronomical data. In
> addition, the cubit measure is used by cultures
> immediately around Egypt and has been known
> (through many sources) to be based on the forearm
> and arm metrics.
>
> From a construction standpoint, it makes sense.
> It's quick and simple and convenient to tell your
> work crew that "I want a stick the length of my
> arm" or "I want a brick the length of my foot" or
> something similar. You don't tell them "run off
> and quarry something (insert astronomical
> calculation)" - plus there is no evidence that
> they were trying to use the Moon or other
> astronomical objects for anything other than
> measuring time.
>
> Your idea, while novel, isn't particularly
> believable given the very late appearance of the
> term you claim it's based on and the markings on
> the rods themselves and so forth. As I've shown,
> I can make a better case for it being the tail of
> the Apis bull - your rebuttal of "read my book"
> isn't holding up well (and makes it look like you
> came here just to shill your book.)


Now, is it a palm or a fist to be added to the length of the forearm?
If you were wrong about the origin of the Royal Cubit, which you persisted to equate to a 'forearm', despite the fallacy of your claim being repeatedly pointed out to you, then what other claims you make are likewise erroneous?
If you don't check facts before making claims, if you misrepresent the origin of one of the basics of egyptology – the standard of measure of all AE architecture – yet continue making fallacious claims, then what does that imply?
If you can't even pass Egyptology 101, despite having the crib notes handed to you, well, that doesn't augur well for the veracity of anything else you imagine.
Now, some condescension is understandable if you know what you're talking about when explaining to those who don't, but your continuing condescending tone, even after you finally accept your argument proven wrong, comes across as risible (to use a blander form of more colourful, pertinent adjectives).

The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus or the employ of other, anatomically-derived cubit measures of later times is not relevant to the origin of the Royal Cubit, the oldest known standard of measure. As Hirsch (2013:2) pointed out, "the small cubit (based on forearm length) belongs to a system different from the Royal Cubit system". Or as Lepsius (1865:52) wrote, they are of "separate and distinct origin". (If you can't read German, there are some online translation resources available for you to check the facts). The cubit rods recovered all date to the New Kingdom (1543 BC – 1056 BC) which followed the Second Intermediate Period (1799 BC – 1543 BC), which followed the era of the Middle Kingdom (2042 BC – 1799 BC), after that of the so-called First Intermediate Period (2285 BC – 2042 BC) How the chronology of these eras was based on the progression of the Sothic Cycles of Horus and Set, which were, in turn, based upon the position of the Tropic of Cancer: you should perhaps continue to read my freely-available explication, which I see you have at least begun to read.

The 'Strides of Re', the average and the specific distance the latitude of the northern Tropic annually decreased by, which even Clouseau would have found evidence for in an investigation, appear from at least the early Third Dynasty as the (average Stride) unit measure of the Djoser complex. Though, the so-called 'funerary enclosure' of Djer at Abydos, given as 315.6 feet in length (O'Connor 1989:58) evidences the employ of a (315.6 / 10) 31.56-feet length of the average Stride, hence a Royal cubit-value of almost 19" during the early-to-mid era of the First Dynasty. As I wrote:

"The Egyptian method of lengthening the royal cubit in proportion to the accelerating speed of the Tropic dates back to at least the Djoser Pyramid where the cubit employed measured 20.45", corresponding to one-twentieth the ground-speed of the Tropic of Cancer in 2670 BC, of 409". (34.083 f.p.y.) Better measurements of the late predynastic and 1st Dynasty-era structures at Sakara and Abydos, among the earliest brick constructions in Egypt, could indicate the Stride-to-cubit methodology originated c.3300 BC when the Tropic traveled at ~30 f.p.y. – hence an original royal cubit length of (360"/20) 18". Which could explain why the forearm hieroglyph (D42) signified the royal cubit, since, from elbow to fingertips, its length was shown to have averaged 45 cm / 17.72". (Robins & Shute, Historia Mathematica 12,1985:114) (2023:230)

Your suggestion that the 'myth of Osiris' was unknown outside of Abydos is almost as laughable as suggestions that the length of the Royal Cubit was an 'idealised' one, which derived from some mythical 'longer forearm' proportion: made by yet more sunless squiggle-drawers. I hope I don't have to explain to you as often and repetitively as necessary (for you to abandon your opinion for the origin of the Royal Cubit) that the base-lengths of every royal Pyramid in Egypt were designed by and to the average and/or the specific (1/10,000th of degree of latitude at ~29.9 deg. N) lengths of the Strides of Re. For the royal Pyramids of the Sixth Dynasty at Sakara, to 7.5 average Strides, for example. Again, perhaps you should check the facts before you make erroneous claims: before, not after your claims have been dismissed.

Your source of the MK Rhind Papyrus in claiming that "they" (whoever 'they' are) didn't know decimals is easily disproven for "those" of the Old Kingdom. The height of the Queen's Chamber of the Khufu is 10.9 cubits from floor to apex, the dimensions of the passage from the Antechamber to the King's Chamber were structured to a tenth the average Stride (in 2541 BC) high, and to a tenth the specific Stride wide. Etc.. If you know tenths, you know decimals. So, how about you quit parroting what "them" judged your orals by? Who are you still trying to impress with your acquiescent squawking? That the face of the Sphinx represents a woman, the mother Goddess, which is provable, clear, obvious and unmistakeable, is a clear and present danger to "those" who some here still appear as happily compliant to kowtow to.