Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whole numbers… then why did they functionally use
> non-integers? The Royal cubit rods blow your
> argument out of the water… fractions of cubits and
> understanding the concept of infinity by using
> unit fractions illustrate their goal wasn’t based
> on whole numbers. First dynasty Egyptian surveyors
> we’re marking out land-area measures based on
> square cubits and understood the diagonal of any
> square to form a 1/2, there’s a case to be made
> the origin of the cubit is the result of being the
> diagonal of a square remen.
>
> 1 cubit was divided by 7 palms which were
> subdivided into 4 fingers before getting into
> subdivisions of fingers by way of unit fractions,
> I.e., 1/n where n is any whole number.
>
> I can’t imagine they would be free to create their
> own cubit length on a per job basis, all the
> administrative record keeping proves otherwise,
> the value or importance of surveying is clearly
> illustrated in the stretching of the cord
> ceremony… a serious event they inaugurated every
> royal project with.
>
> B.A.Hokom

I think the fractions were because the rods measured more than just blocks of stone and the architect/crew chief would have had more than one project. Some of those would have a need for small measurements like that (exterior masonry, for example, making sure the non-standard slabs fit together well or measuring the interior of a room or corridor or even measuring rope or wood or cloth.)

Now, admittedly this is my own unsupported idea -- but having done a bit of math to calculate volume and so forth -- if someone announced I was going to have to build a very large structure, I wouldn't convert the measurement to quarter inches and do all my calculations with that. I'd use fractions if I had to fit something together but I'm not going to send out to the quarry for twenty million blocks that are 4 1/2 inches by 5 inches by 17 1/4th inches. Likewise if I've got to figure out how many blocks to order to fill a space, I'm going to use a larger measurement so that I can easily calculate the number.

They did use fractions in dealing with volume.

I think the obsession with the GP cubit measurements is an exercise in chasing ghosts. I don't see any such drive to find out the cubit dimensions of the various valley temples, of other mausoleums there on Giza, of other temples (the great Karnak temple, which was far more important than the GP), etc. But if you wanted to find out what one group of architects and builders used for a cubit, you'd have to look at more than one thing built by them.

Again, this is just my own speculation. It's not evidenced and I wouldn't even call it a "thought experiment." It's "late night with a glass of sherry thinking."

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at