🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 02 May 2009 09:00:06 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 May 2009 03:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>> <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 1, 11:10 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have decided you are a form of critic that is never satisfied. You
>>> state you have demonstrated knowledge of Egyptian measurements but do
>>> not know the difference between a khet (length) and a khet (area.
>>> Think mile, square mile.
>>>
>> What is more, I never will be satisfied while you insist on answering
>> my simple question about what is meant by 'khat', by finding and
>> dumping on me long quotes about 'khet'.
>> 
>>    'khet'  #  'khat'   
>> 
>>  ... even if they almost look the same.
>
>I will not attempt to challenge your knowledge of Egyptian 
>measurement, but I think Kanga's use of "khat" in this thread 
>might have been a simple typo. 

Well, it might have been but then agin it might not. There is the
problem that by later times there was a unit of measure called 'khat'
but my understanding is it was more or less the same as 'khet', the
only difference being in the method of measurement (i.e. a piece of
rope). However I could find no evidence for such a term or usage at
the time of the Turin papyrus. Kangarooistan may have found something
of which I had previously been unaware.

>The word he quoted immediately 
>before his typing "khat" was "khet". I took "khat" as a typo, and 
>read the rest of his post. It scanned, as well as anything Kanga 
>writes scans, fine taking his "khat" to mean "khet".

The problem here is that in the Message-ID:
<6230b75b-eae3-40e2-a9f3-6bd62419f621@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com> on
On May 1, 6:05 am, Kangarooistan wrote:

  "  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]3,4

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Turin%20Papyrus/Harrell_Papyrus_Map_table-1.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   We dont know how many khat = 100 cubits the distance was ... "

Two 'khat's and two 'khets'. One interpretation of the sentence
structure is the number 'khats' had to be removed and to conceal the
original value so too were the value given in 'khet'

The whole thing is a mare's nest and with hindsight I would have
abandoned the discussion if I had known what Jack was going to dump on
me. A mere typo is still a potential explanation but who knows what
Jack thinks on the subject.
>
>But again, I have not followed this thread in the detail as have 
>you and Jack, so I don't offer this as anything but a possibility 
>that may, if correct, help solve a minor mystery.



Eric Stevens