Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> I contend their approach to calculating cubits did
> NOT change from the OK, to the MK, to the NK, that
> it was based on some specific digit measurement
> that changed with the ruler or the builders, and
> offer this hypothesis to explain actual
> observations of digit differences as well as
> Petrie's theorized finger-differentials.


I don't think it needs to be that complicated. I personally think they DID harken back to the earlier cubits, but these cubits all suffered from the same problem we have: no original source material. They just copied whatever cubit rod they could find, and that level of replicative fading led to the wide variety of measurements we show in later dynasties. Honestly, they were probably no more accurate in EARLIER dynasties. There were probably regional variations that resulted in the same kind of replicative fading.

In all honesty, the only thing that mattered was the ONE standardized cubit was used on EACH separate project. It is only within the one site that the accuracy of the specific unit of measurement makes a difference.

Just look at this comparison:

Khafre cubit (based on 410 cubit base): 20.67"
Khafre Cubit (based on 411 cubit base): 20.62"
Khafre Cubit (based on 412 cubit base): 20.57"


Menkaure Menkaure Cubit (based on 199 cubit base): 20.87"
Menkaure Menkaure Cubit (based on 200 cubit base): 20.77"
Menkaure Menkaure Cubit (based on 201 cubit base): 20.66"
Menkaure Menkaure Cubit (based on 202 cubit base): 20.56"

These are all based on Petrie's measurements, found here: [www.ronaldbirdsall.com]

Notice how no matter what dimension I choose, I can't find a standard "20.61" cubit that holds BEYOND the use in ONE pyramid construction site on the same plateau, separated by only one generation each?


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.