Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 17, 2024, 2:35 am UTC    
tim
November 13, 2009 06:05AM
M.J.Thomas 2 Wrote,

>Try as I may, I cannot see how Petrie arrived at 4402.1" for this total measure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petries mean base measure is 9068.8", so half base measure is 9068.8"/2 = 4534.4".

However in the general summary of positions, he uses a half base length of 4534" and 4534.1".
e.g. S. end of entrance passage is 4228" from N. 306" from Centre.
4228" + 306" = 4534"

He gives the position of the Q.chamber N.E.corner as 4402.1" from N.base, 102" from centre.

4534.1" - 102" = 4432.1"

The 0 should be 3.

When I first noticed this I contacted the Petrie museum who have a typed copy of the original manuscript. The error is also there.
Subject Author Posted

Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 02, 2009 02:32PM

an error in Petrie?

Warwick L Nixon November 02, 2009 04:56PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 02, 2009 05:38PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

tim November 13, 2009 06:05AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Dave Lightbody November 13, 2009 06:34AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

tim November 13, 2009 07:10AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 13, 2009 11:34AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 13, 2009 12:34PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 13, 2009 01:02PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 13, 2009 11:14AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 02, 2009 07:40PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

RLH November 02, 2009 08:01PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 02, 2009 09:08PM

Woops...!

Clive November 03, 2009 12:14AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 03, 2009 07:50AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 03, 2009 07:40PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 04, 2009 12:19PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 04, 2009 12:43PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 04, 2009 04:26PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Don Barone November 04, 2009 04:29PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 04, 2009 05:36PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 04, 2009 07:48PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Clive November 06, 2009 12:17AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jon_B November 06, 2009 11:45AM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 06, 2009 03:07PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

MJ Thomas 2 November 06, 2009 03:00PM

Re: Since we're checking things, an error in Petrie? (surely not...)

Jim Alison November 09, 2009 11:09PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login