Hi all
Newbie. Apologies if I step on toes.
Some comments in response to assorted points made by others in this topic.
1. Chris Bartlett has a convenient summary of surveys of the GP. The average is distorted by Howard Vyse being silly.
[
doi.org]
at least one giving 230.384 m = 440 cubits
2. I would argue that the base was intended to be 440 royal cubits. The question then becomes, how do you measure 440... doing it by moving a cubit rod 439 times is not going to be exact. That is a different problem to "how long was a cubit?"
3. Question about metre/cubit/+one other in the dimensions of GP: probably the foot, as discussed by Alan Green.
[
www.youtube.com]
4. As to the value of the cubit, I found the focus on the sphere curious ... .am more familiar with pi/6 or phi^2/5 = 0.5236 approach, which are based on pi or phi^2 as lengths in metres rather than infinite strings of decimals. How they had the metre, or something very close to it, is a different problem.
I quite agree that the ancient Egyptians did not know pi. But pi at 3.14 or better is all over Giza, so what must we conclude from that? I conclude that Giza is not 4th dynasty, but others do not agree with that conclusion.
Petrie was under pressure to produce a value for the cubit that matched others popular at the time, which were larger, so he went as low as he dared, but probably not exactly low enough. (Proof for this opinion is his curious phrasing "but taking the King's Chamber alone, as being the best datum by far, it nevertheless contracts upwards, so that it is hardly justifiable to adopt a larger result than 20.620 plusminus 0.005.")
Cheers, Ian
[
orcid.org]