affiliator Wrote:
> I would agree with you about only one cubit being
> used throughout the pyramid except maybe in the
> Queen's Chamber where I suspect a different cubit
> may have been employed from that of the KC.
This apparent difference is down to the east wall of the Queen’s Chamber not being precisely 10 royal cubits (rc) @ 20.632” wide but 9.965rc to 9.974rc @ 20.632”.
This has led – erroneously, IMO - to the view that the Queen’s Chamber was planned with a royal cubit shorter (i.e. 0.053” to 0.072”) than the one used in the King’s Chamber.
However, according to Petrie the side (north and south) walls of the Queen’s Chamber lean fairly evenly northward by almost 1” at the apex level (curiously, an almost same degree of lean is seen in the Chamber’s east and west walls, except that they lean inwards on the Chamber).
Because of this the apex of the Chamber at the end (east and west) walls is off-centre.
Measurements of the distance between the apex of the Chamber and a side wall reveal quite clearly that the royal cubit length was the same as for the King’s Chamber.
Actual and projected measurements of the Chamber’s west wall give 206.33”, which compares favourably with Petrie’s King’s Chamber royal cubit.
> We
> have to remember there must have been hundreds if
> not thousands of cubit rods in use at the time of
> construction, slight differences in the rod
> lengths may account for what appear to be varied
> cubit lengths.
Which is why I am careful to point out that I believe a single length royal cubit was used in the planning – note planning not building – of the entire Pyramid.
> However personally I believe Petrie
> got it spot on with his 20.62 +/- final value
> which he derived.
And I continue to argue that Petrie is wrong.
> > But does it matter?
> > Well, only if one thinks that there is something
> > mathematically significant in those dimensions of
> > the Pyramid that are measured in hundreds of royal
> > cubits.
> > For example, there is a difference of 5.8" between
> > a side at the base seen as 440 x 20.6188333" and a
> > side seen as 440 x 20.632".
> > Is this 5.8" difference over some 756 feet a
> > critical factor?
> > Well, you tell me...
>
> At the scale of the pyramid the discrepancy is
> fairly marginal, at the scale of the overall site
> (north-south) it enlarges to about a cubit
> difference, and then exponentially from there.
Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing for certain whether or not a standard royal cubit was employed over the whole of the Giza necropolis.
If mainstream Egyptology is to be believed, then there was no forward planning of the three Giza pyramids and their satellites as a collective, so to speak.
If each pyramid and its satellite/s was/were planned completely independent of any other/s, then given an anthropomorphic origin for the royal cubit it would be likely that each king employed a slightly different length royal cubit.
To put it more simply, there was no standardisation - a sort of: the reigning king's arm ruled.
> Personally I feel it does matter, from a
> mathematical perspective and a practical one. Just
> my opinion though.
I’m inclined to agree in so far as there does appear to be some regular geometric pattern to the layout of the Giza pyramids that might not be coincidental.
> > As for how the royal cubit came to be in some
> > cases approx. 20.6", my money is on a standard
> > cubit of 6 palms/24 digits derived from certain
> > but unidentifiable people's forearms/hands/fingers
> > and increased for reasons unknown by 1 palm/4
> > digits to 7 palms/28 digits.
>
> You could be right, personally I feel the standard
> was set well before the Great Pyramid was built
> even, and after many years slight inaccuracies had
> begun to set in.
I imagine that anthropometrically based units of linear measurement are as old as Modern Man, with differences occurring from people to people, culture to culture and place to place – and all with a complete lack of any form of standardisation.
> The original source of the cubit
> was lost and it eventually became anthropomorphic.
Have you any suggestions as to what the nature of this ‘original source’ might have been?
> > I really cannot be doing with this malarkey akin
> > to: 'Think of a number between X and Y, multiply
> > it by the sum of the numbers in your
> > great-grandmother’s 122nd birthday (even though
> > she passed away at 72), divide it by the number of
> > inches between A and C via B, and multiply it by
> > the sum of the number of dots on two dice after
> > three shots out of a catapult; if the result is
> > not as required then alter the value of one or
> > more of these factors to resolve it’.
>
> It is ok to play with numbers, but it only becomes
> meaningful in a practical sense when the results
> converge into a plausible theory which can be
> tested in the real world... not a chance "hit"
> here and there. One needs to be careful when
> "swimming" in the numerical ocean... it is quite
> easy to get lost at sea or worse submerged
> completely.
A major criticism I have of Pyramidology theories that involve mathematics is that they invariably have different formulas and or geometry for different parts of the Pyramid; there is very little or no continuity of method and, to make matters worse, several of the Pyramid’s many minor features are simply ignored.
Regards,
MJ