Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 ??
The remen being a diagonal measure is at odds with anything on the square. The only other diagonal measure that I know of (and have explored) is the handspan and I have done the necessary comparisons. Next month when my site returns I will present that for discussion. However remens and royal cubits are incompatible with each other and therefore cannot share common division. Doubling and halving land areas didn't call for much division anyway, perhaps halves, quarters. I haven't considered the 363 unit with diagonals because essentially I see it as a division of the common cubit and the ...
> 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.
>
I can understand Arnold having a stab at this but this whole vexed question of non working rods and rods long removed from the pyramid building phases somehow being able to show the variations that Egptians worked with, is a bit rich IMO. Maybe you do see the thoughts of Arnold being reflected in Petrie's data but as you say, if there are other measures of which Petrie was unaware or couldn't relate to then we must wait for that to be resolved.
Some of the evidence that I have managed to collect for other measure is however very compelling, at least for Giza.
Graham