fmetrol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This .363 unit is in fact present at both Saqqara and Giza and it’s to be regarded as a division of some measure other than the royal cubit.

So ... 1/80 of a double remen, for example ??

I disagree with Arnold's statement and I'll tell
> you why, and yes we have had this discussion
> before.
>
> New Kingdom measuring rods have no bearing on the
> Old Kingdom besides Wood expands and contracts due
> to either absorbing or expiring moisture. The rods
> themselves are mostly votive, gifts to the temple,
> iow copies of copies and there is ample evidence
> that the copiers had difficulty reading them for
> when they came across multiples of three for the
> royal cubit sign, in many cases, they interpreted
> it differently.
>
> Nobody to my knowledge other than Arnold would
> averaged these rods and give 1% variation for a
> period 1000 years prior. It's not only wrong but
> ludicrous.
>
> As for Petrie's variation on the cubit, I have
> attempted to explain it. I don't know if it is
> correct but its my best bet to date.

I appreciate the care that went into your detailed explanation.

Petrie's results are in line with the variations measured by Arnold. If I understand correctly, however, you seem to be arguing that Petrie's conclusions were drawn from allegedly misinterpreted or misread data, and that it is unsafe to use these to endorse other conclusions also drawn from data allegedly misinterpreted or misread ... Perhaps the matter will be resolved only after further expert studies.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me