🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 1, 4:52 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On May 1, 12:27 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 May 2009 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 30, 6:12 pm, kangarooistan <kangarooist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> There is no evidence that  the Turin Papyrus " gold mine " was  in
> >> >> Egypt , not a single tiny piece of evidence exists to prove the  GOLD
> >> >> mine described in the Turin Papyrus fragments A ,B ,C or D ,
> >> >> describes  a mine in Egypt
>
> >> >> the fragments after that DO have heaps of evidence that clearly exists
> >> >> and can be found in Egypt , but there is nothing that points to the
> >> >> site at Bir Umm Fawakhir in the fragments A B C or D  , and NOTHING on
> >> >> the ground in Egypt , or in any museum  anywhere that cab tie the
> >> >> Turin Papyrus "gold mine '  to any where ,  except the site in south
> >> >> Australia  where EVERY natural and every man made feature in the map
> >> >> fits and can be seen with the naked eye  even without digging , after
> >> >> 3160 years  even today without leaving your car seat  you can
> >> >> recognize the features exactly as marked in the Turin map
>
> >> >> While EVERY  natural feature  and the remains of every man made
> >> >> feature on the map , on the Turin Papyrus " gold mine " map  , can be
> >> >> seen with the naked eye ,  in SOUTH AUSTRALIA , experts accept the
> >> >> Egyptian site with NIL evidence at  Bir Umm Fawakkir
> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> The map even describes the mine as being a very very very long way
> >> >> from the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat ,  in fragments E
> >> >> onward of the Turin Papyrus clearly is in EGYPT and can be SEEN to be
> >> >> so
>
> >> >> As the details in South Australia equally can CLEARLY be identified as
> >> >> matching the Turin Papyrus CLEARLY
>
> >> >> SBS TV or Aljazeera  may like to cover the topic as news , and show
> >> >> both site for all to see what I mean , I wont deal with other news
>
> >> >>   It appears somebody removed the number of Khat  to the gold
> >> >> mine ,  , but it was repeated 3 times ,  indicating it was a very very
> >> >> very long way ,  IMHO , and to hide this " problem"  somebody though
> >> >> to remove the number of khet ,  so as  more easily to tie it into the
> >> >> local area and perhaps ? , to  make it ' fit "  in with the the other
> >> >> fragments presented as one scroll  ??
>
> >> >> note  17 in pro Harrell research  says
> >> >> .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> 17          distance from the gold-working settlement to the mountain
> >> >> of bekheny,…khet
>
> >> >> [this text is repeated three times, apparently for emphasis; the
> >> >> distance in units of khet is missing]3,4http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr...
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> We dont know how many khat = 100 cubits the distance was  , but seems
> >> >> it was very very very  many , ...
>
> >> Jack, I've relocated your text to hear so that it follows the part of
> >> the article upon which you are commenting:
>
> >> >Very many? The ancient Egyptian units of measure are as follows: 1
> >> >khet = 100 cubits; 1 cubit (the standardized distance from the elbow
> >> >to the tip of the longest finger) = 7 palms (palm widths) = 28 fingers
> >> >(finger widths); 1 cubit = 52.31 cm, 1 palm = 7.47 cm, 1 finger = 1.87
> >> >cm.
>
> >> >many many many khet is 520 cm, ie 5 meters times many many many ie
> >> >about 1500 meters, ie roughly a mile ....
>
> >> Something is confused here. Kangarooistan wrote about a 'khat' for
> >> which you have substituted 'khet'. I don't know about 'khat' but
> >> 'khet' is not a measure of distance but a measure of area, being 100
> >> cubits long and 1 cubit wide. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_weights_and_measures
> >> In fact, the use of a distance of measurement based on 100 cubits
> >> seems improbable if a large distance is being described. The Wiki site
> >> above says "For longer distances the Egyptians used a minute of march
> >> of 350 royal cubits and an atur (hour of march) or itrw (river
> >> journey) of 21,000 royal cubits". Kangarooistan's interpretation of
> >> the document is equivalent to someone giving the distance from Rome to
> >> the sea in fathoms.
>
> >> The word 'khat' is mystery to me. I am aware that by the time of
> >> Eratosthenes the word khat was being used as a unit of measure, but
> >> this a long time after the map was drawn. I am not aware of any
> >> earlier use of the term as a unit of measure.
>
> Once agin I have relocated your text so that it relates to the text
> upon which you are commenting.
>
> >I think everything is a mystery to you. Roo cited note 17 from a cite
> >of mine which is below
>
> >note  17 in pro Harrell research  says
> >.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >17          distance from the gold-working settlement to the mountain
> >of bekheny,…khet
>
> >[this text is repeated three times, apparently for emphasis; the
> >distance in units of khet is missing]3,4
> >http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr...
>
>   "HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found."
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >Just like English there is a khet distance and a khet area.
>
> Not according to any reference I have found. See for examplehttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Ancient_Egyptian_units_of_measurement
>
> 5. 5. Area
>       ........
>
>     * 1 st3t khet, a field of sides 100 ordinary cubits ? 2000 m²,
>      21,000 ft²
>
> Using khet to measure length seems to be no more appropriate for the
> purpose than using acres or hectares.
>
>
>
> >and
>
> >Khet:
> >100 cubits (ca. 52 m) a rod or 'rod of cord' or rope
>
> All of which is fine, but an explanation of the word 'khet' does
> nothing to demystify Kangarooistan's use of the word 'khat'.
>
> >Minute of March:
> >150 royal cubits
> >Schoenus:
> >12,000 royal cubits
> >Atur:
> >15,000 royal cubits
> >River Measure:
> >20,000 cubits (ca. 10.5 km).  [This unit is presumed to reflect one
> >day's travel towing a boat up the Nile]
>
> >http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rgrosser/amarna/neywe...
>
> Not an entirely reliable source. It fails to make clear that at
> virtually all times there seem to have been multiple definitions for
> most units of measure, that the definitions changed over time, and
> that the usage (or even the existence) of the various measures also
> changed over time. After all, they had several thousand years in which
> to do so.
>
>
>
> >> >> ... and the site  claimed by  the main
> >> >> stream is  very close  , even though there is no evidence in the
> >> >> scroll or on the ground that  says its in Egypt, and the highly
> >> >> respected  eye witness author of the scroll ,and a well respected
> >> >> learned man who made the map would have known every town and the
> >> >> distance ,  he does not name a single thing that ties the map to
> >> >> anything in his native Egypt in the said map
>
> >> >> Absence of evidence may not be evidence ,  but its very surprising ,
> >> >> the scholarly maps maker  did not include a single thing that places
> >> >> the " gold mine ' in shown in the beautiful Papyrus  in  Egypt
>
> >> >> In this case it may in fact be evidence  ,  that it may indeed be a
> >> >> mine that is NOT in Egypt , as at the time Phonetician sailors and
> >> >> traders sailed the globe in search of gold , and there are references
> >> >> of Hapshepsuts " green gold of / from Emu " , from that era , and EMU
> >> >> is a word of Arabic origins  meaning big bird   , STILL  according to
> >> >> dictionaries  , and the map says they mine a mix of gold and silver
> >> >> that is " green gold "
>
> >> >> Why do we doubt the " Green gold from Emu " was not a direct reference
> >> >> to this mine , that was in that ear , mining green gold, = 25%to 50%
> >> >> silver as per the Turin maphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ag-Au-Cu-colours.png
>
> >> >> Arabic origin of the word Emu seem to add weighthttp://translate.reference.com/browse/emu?olang=all&
>
> >> >> The ancient tool that helped unlock the secret was found at the site
> >> >> marked as a refinery of goldhttp://mail.google.com/mail/h/j34ur7rwpv3m/?view=att&th=120e0fd6c757d...
>
> >> >> This site covers the Turin papyrus very well and I can not  see any
> >> >> reason to exclude the South Australian site
>
> >> >> OR to even consider the site presently thought to be the mine site in
> >> >> Egypt , nothing said in this scholarly site actually claims any real
> >> >> evidence atall for the site presently accepted ,NIL evidence to
> >> >> support the present Egypt site exists ANYWHEREhttp://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyr......
>
> >> >> kanga
> >> >> =====
> >> >> WHERE is the evidence from 3160 years ago ??
>
> >> >> No systematic archaeological survey or excavations had been carried
> >> >> out at Bir Umm Fawakhir prior to 1992, but the site is mentioned in
> >> >> quite a few travelers' accounts.
>
> >> >>  Most of them note the gold mines, wells, hundreds of "Roman" huts,
> >> >> and parts of the site now lost, such as the Ptolemaic temple. One of
> >> >> the early visitors was Arthur E. P. Weigall, who published an
> >> >> excellent account in Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts (1909). He
> >> >> left the most complete description of the Ptolemaic temple as well as
> >> >> the only known copy of its inscriptions. Couyat (1910) called Bir Umm
> >> >> Fawakhir "une véritable ville," but his most interesting contribution
> >> >> was a report of a papyrus, now lost, and two statues found in the
> >> >> quarries. Battered, headless, and almost armless, they are nonetheless
> >> >> in a classical style and were
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Those rods of the cubit are then pointless?

Are you one of those "I don't know anything I haven't found myself"
types?

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rgrosser/amarna/neywetaten/measures.htm

C U B I T S
Last Updated 11/01/02: Richard Grosser: cadre@xtra.co.nz
Best viewed on a MAC with Die Nasty, Glyph Basic & GlyphExt Fonts

    Egyptian Mensuration

      Linear Measure

        Cubit
        The Cubit also called Covid, unit of linear measure used by
many ancient peoples.  It may have originated in Egypt about 3000 BC;
it thereafter became ubiquitous in the ancient world. The cubit,
usually equal to about 18 inches (457 mm), was based on the length of
the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. In some
cultures it was as long as 21 inches (531 mm).

        Although there is evidence that many early civilizations
devised standards of measurement and some tools for measuring, the
Egyptian cubit is generally recognized as having been the most
ubiquitous standard of linear measurement in the very ancient world.
Developed about 3000 BC, it was based on the length of the arm from
the elbow to the extended fingertips and was standardized by a royal
master cubit of black granite, against which all the cubit sticks in
use in Egypt were measured at regular intervals.

        Turin Cubit Stick

            Fig 1. The Egyptian Museum of Turin: Royal Cubit Stick
(Museo Egizio)


        The royal cubit (524 millimetres, or 20.62 inches) was
subdivided in an extraordinarily complicated way.  The basic subunit
was the digit, doubtlessly a finger's breadth, of which there were 28
in the royal cubit.
        * Four digits equaled a palm, five a hand.
        * Twelve digits, or three palms, equaled a small span.
        * Fourteen digits, or one-half a cubit, equaled a large span.
        * Sixteen digits, or four palms, made one t'ser.
        * Twenty-four digits, or six palms, were a small cubit.

        Fig 1. Royal Cubit Stick (showing the Lunar associations).


        Digit
        The digit was in turn subdivided.  Reading from right to left
in the upper register,  the 14th digit on a cubit stick was marked off
into 16 equal parts.  The next digit was divided into 15 parts, and so
on, to the 28th digit, which was divided into 2 equal parts.  Thus,
measurement could be made to digit fractions with any denominator from
2 through 16.  The smallest division, 1/16 of a digit, was equal to
1/448 part of a royal cubit.  The accuracy of the cubit stick is
attested by the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza; although
thousands were employed in building it, its sides vary no more than
0.05 percent from the mean length of 230.364 m (9,069.45 ins).

        Khet:
        100 cubits (ca. 52 m) a rod or 'rod of cord' or rope
        Minute of March:
        150 royal cubits
        Schoenus:
        12,000 royal cubits
        Atur:
        15,000 royal cubits
        River Measure:
        20,000 cubits (ca. 10.5 km).  [This unit is presumed to
reflect one day's travel towing a boat up the Nile]


      Area

        The Egyptians developed methods and instruments for measuring
land at a very early date.  The annual flood of the Nile River created
a need for benchmarks and surveying techniques so that property
boundaries could be readily reestablished when the water receded.  The
Egyptian weight system appears to have been founded on a unit called
the kite, with a decimal ratio, 10 kites equaling 1 deben, and 10
debens equaling 1 sep.  Over the long span of Egyptian history, the
weight of the kite varied from period to period, ranging all the way
from 4.5 to 29.9 grams (0.16 to 1.05 ounce).  About 3,400 different
weights have been recovered from ancient Egypt, some in basic
geometric shapes, others in human and animal forms.  Egyptian liquid
measures, from large to small, were ro, hin, hekat, khar, and cubic
cubit (0.14 metre3 [37 gallons US]).

      Mathematics

        Mathematics in ancient Egypt The introduction of writing in
Egypt in the predynastic period (c. 3000 BC) brought with it the
formation of a special class of literate professionals, the scribes.
By virtue of their writing skills, the scribes took on all the duties
of a civil service: record keeping, tax accounting, the management of
public works (building projects and the like), even the prosecution of
war through overseeing military supplies and payrolls. Young men
enrolled in scribal schools to learn the essentials of the trade,
which included not only reading and writing but also the basics of
mathematics.  One of the texts popular as a copy exercise in the
schools of the New Kingdom (13th century BC) was a satirical letter in
which one scribe, Hori, taunts his rival, Amen-em-opet, for his
incompetence as an adviser and manager.   "You are the clever scribe
at the head of the troops," Hori chides at one point; "a ramp is to be
built, 730 cubits long, 55 cubits wide, with 120 compartments--it is
60 cubits high, 30 cubits in the middle . . . and the generals and the
scribes turn to you and say, You are a clever scribe, your name is
famous. Is there anything you don't know?  Answer us, how many bricks
are needed?'

        Let each compartment be 30 cubits by 7 cubits."   This
problem, and three others like it in the same letter, cannot be solved
without further data.  But the point of the humour is clear, as Hori
challenges his rival with these hard, but typical, tasks.  What is
known of Egyptian mathematics tallies well with the tests posed by the
scribe Hori. The information comes primarily from two long papyrus
documents that once served as textbooks within scribal schools.  The
Rhind Papyrus (in the British Museum) is a copy made in the 17th
century BC of a text two centuries older still.  In it is found a long
table of fractional parts to help with division, followed by the
solutions of 84 specific problems in arithmetic and geometry.  The
Golenishchev Papyrus (in the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts), dating from
the 19th century BC, presents 25 problems of a similar type.  These
problems reflect well the functions the scribes would perform, for
they deal with how to distribute beer and bread as wages, for example,
or how to measure the areas of fields or the volumes of pyramids and
other solids.


            "Despite being subjected to destructive attacks early in
the century, the Boundary Stelae the King had set up to demarcate his
territory - and they alone - continue to speak out of times past:
            Akhenaton's kingdom covered a territory the size of "six
iteru, three-quarters of a khet and four cubits the side," - from the
north stela to the south stela - or about thirteen thousand meters."
            http://www.bergerfoundation.ch/Akhenaton/en/akhetaton.htm


    Egyptian Standard Measures


        It has long been accepted that the measurement systems used
throughout the Greek and Roman world had first been perfected in
Egypt.  What is universally referred to as the 'common Egyptian' foot
of 300mm continued to be used in Rome in conjunction with the system
that is acknowledged as 'Roman'.  This Roman system is related to the
Greek by a ratio of 24 to 25, and it is the measurements adopted by
the Greeks that are the true basis of the Egyptian structure.

        What is accepted as "common" Egyptian measure is related to
the "royal" by a ratio of 6 to 7.  Thus, six palms of four digits is
the common Egyptian cubit, and seven palms, or 28 digits, is the royal
Egyptian cubit.  This six to seven ratio links values in a multitude
of systems.  It is, for example, the ratio of the human anatomical
foot being one seventh of the overall height of the canonical man,
which height is then regarded as six feet of the longer value.  (If
the anatomical foot is a half royal Egyptian cubit, then the man is
six English feet tall).  Many examples of statuary throughout the
ancient world overtly display this identical ratio in other values and
systems.


        However, the convention of dividing the royal cubit solely
into 28 digits was a comparatively late development of the New
Kingdom, which was after 1350 BC.  Middle Kingdom rods carried a dual
scale of 24 digits and 28 digits.  But Old Kingdom cubit rods, from
3400 BC, although of the identical lengths, were divided exclusively
into 24 digits.  It was a widely held conception, repeated by
Herodotus, that the royal cubit was three digits longer than the
common.  Therefore, the true common cubit of the Egyptians was related
to the royal by a ratio of seven to eight, and this is the exact
relationship of the Greek system to the royal Egyptian.  This seven to
eight relationship between measures is as widespread as is the now
accepted six to seven.

        Very distinct relationships, by variations of a single
fraction, are immediately apparent in these comparisons.  The
acceptance of this fact is fundamental to an understanding of ancient
metrology.  For this is how the Egyptians calculated.  A multiple
fraction, say 4/7ths would not be recognised, because only one seventh
could occupy the seventh place.  This fraction would therefore have to
be expressed as ? + 1/14th.  That is, the greater fraction would have
to be written first, and depending on the complexity of the original
fraction in question, lesser fractions would diminutively approach its
solution.  For day-to-day problems involving such questions as amounts
to be shared among numbers etc., this is an extremely clumsy system.
As many as forty of these diminishing single fractions have been
recorded in expressing one multiple fraction, (such as 261/383,
etc.).   When the method is applied to metrology, it works extremely
well.  Therefore, these exoteric methods of calculation, which were
also practised by the Greeks and Romans, may well stem from a base of
metrology; when applied to day-to-day problems, although simple, are
extremely laborious.  It is hardly likely that the scientists used
such cumbrous methods.  It is a virtual certainty that the decimal
method of calculation was known, although not divulged to the general
workforce and artisans.

        Another of the fundamental truths, which must be acknowledged
to come to an understanding of the complexities of ancient metrology,
is the fact that the primary system adopted by the Greeks is the root
from which all other systems develop.  For it is the variations of the
Greek foot, that when expressed in terms of the English foot are also
equations.  The values are the formulae by which all of the other
measures that develop from it are divided or multiplied into their
classifications.

        All other systems of mensuration stem from the Root English
(Greek) foot, by the addition or subtraction of a substantial
fraction. It is not the royal cubit, nor any other of these ancient
standards, that is the basis of their systems, for they themselves are
compounds.  The basic, or Rootroyal Egyptian cubit, is 12/7 English
feet, or 1.7142857ft; this is the English cubit of 1.57 ft plus one
seventh.  Many examples of the use of this value are recognized with
close precision.  One of the three ritualistic standard cubit rods of
the Egyptian Museum of Turin (Fig. 1) is given as 20.587 ins, and
12/7  English feet are 20.5714 ins.  John Perring, when he surveyed
the pyramid of Amenemhet III at Dashur, found the base side to measure
342.5 ft, and 200 royal cubits of 12/7ft are 342.8571ft.  The cubit of
construction in the step pyramid of Zoser is given as 20.55 inches.
Therefore is possible to state in absolute terms, this length, among
others, as a standard expression of the royal cubit.

        It is by the addition of the 440th part to this Root cubit
that it becomes the Standard royal cubit of 1.71818ft.  This is the
precise length of the cubit of the Giza complex, as established by
Petrie's survey of 1882.  Both of these, Root and Standard royal
Egyptian cubits, develop into the other recognised variants by the
addition or subtraction of their 175th part.  Mathematical reasons and
examples for these fractional shifts are given in the Greek, Roman and
Megalithic hyperlinks.

        The tables that have been compiled, express the rigidly
mathematical structure which underpins ancient metrology.  However, in
all nations, there are minor variations that do not adhere to these
given values.  Invariably these prove to be localised geographic
variations, for the length of the meridian degree varies at all
latitudes and the whole system is essentially geodetic.  The author is
not the first to remark that the Egyptians measured itinerary
distances by geographic degrees -- the analysis of the pyramid
dimensions leaves little room for doubt on that score.  The temple of
Amun at Thebes was considered to be at the geodetic centre of Egypt,
and the ornate omphalos discovered by Reisner at that location, is the
trig point from which all distances were calculated. It is significant
that Thebes is two sevenths of the distance from the equator to the
pole, the degree at that latitude is the septenary 363428.57ft.  The
geographic foot, or the 360,000th part, of this degree is 1.009524ft,
this is 106 to 105 English feet. The Root royal cubit fits this degree
exactly 212,000 times and by the convention established by
Eratosthenes that there are 210,000 royal cubits to the degree, then
this geographic variant of the royal cubit is 1.7306ft, which is 12/7
x 106/105, (or 1.71428ft x 1.009524ft).  This explains why certain
measures, such as this geographic cubit, do not conform to the tables
of the strictly mathematical variations.  It would seem that a cubit
of this length, 1.7306ft, was used in the pyramid of Mycerinus, at 200
in the base side, and is within one part in 5400 of the cubit of
Denderah, found by Clark and Engelbach, reported as 527.588 mm, and
1.7306ft is 527.486mm.

        Also recovered from the temple of Amun, were three ritual
stone cubit rods, they each carried the identical inscription, which
stated that the overall length of Egypt, from Bhedet in the north to
Syene in the south was 106 "atur". (An "atur" was 15,000 royal cubits,
a "schoenus" was 12,000 royal cubits, and a "minute of march" was 150
royal cubits, as itinerary distances).  The southern boundary of Egypt
was taken to be different points for a variety of calculations, often
enough, these would be natural features such as the great cataract, at
the furthest point south.  Then the first cataract as another
acceptance of the boundary; also celestial bearings such as the tropic
at around 24º.  Before 1000 BC, Syene was reckoned as one of the
southern limits, at 24º 06', where, at that time, the upper horn of
the sun shone perpendicularly down a well only at the summer solstice.

        A contrived, or rather, calculated, southern limit was
considered to be a little to the north near Aswan, at a point on Biga
island and it is around this location, that the only royal cubit that
would be a solution to the distance of 106 atur being the overall
length of Egypt, would be the root cubit of 12/7 English feet.  There
is little doubt that Egyptians regarded such distances in geographic
terms, or that they measured with this degree of accuracy.

        During the time of Akhenaten's reforms from 1367 BC, the city
of Akhetaten which he founded, was located at the exact geographic
centre of Egypt and stated in several official inscriptions to be:
        "6 atur, 3/4 of a khet and 4 cubits in extent".  Thus, over a
distance exceeding 30 miles, the surveyors took into account single
cubits.

        Fig 3. The location of Akhetaten, at the geographical centre
of Egypt.

        Measures of all descriptions, adopted by a great number of
nations, are acknowledged to have been used in Egypt, but these are
the basics of their metrology, together with some of its applications.
Although the Egyptians are acknowledged to have perfected the system
and preserved it through an astonishing period of time -- the evidence
would certainly imply that they neither invented nor discovered it.
This is because contemporary cultures, with whom the Egyptians had no
contact and were separated from by enormous distances, may be
demonstrated to have used the identical system.
        http://www.secretacademy.com/pages/eygypstandards.htm

        collated by Richard Grosser

        January 19, 2002




Angham: Ya Tayyib