🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 05 May 2009 08:51:46 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2009 07:02:53 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 May 2009 07:03:00 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>><jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 2, 10:00�am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 2 May 2009 03:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>>>> > <jacklinthi...@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. 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".
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
>>>> And hear their death-knell ringing;
>>>> When friends rejoice, both far and near,
>>>> How can I keep from singing.
>>>
>>>Besides khat = headdress, khet = measurement
>>>
>>>Look it up
>>
>>If you examine the first two items found at http://tinyurl.com/cxbd2h
>>you will conclude that "a khat, (is) a twisted cord of 100 cubits
>>(used) by "rope stretchers", called harpedonaptai" Unfortunately I
>>cannot get to the relevant part of the site) and also that the khat is
>>a measuring device.  Separate research will show that a khet is indeed
>>a unit of measure but it is a unit of area.
>>
>
>Khat means the physical body:
>http://tinyurl.com/cv96g5 as well as headdress. 
>
>Khet is the unit of measurement, 100 cubits.
>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jBNUAAAAMAAJ&q=khet+twisted+cord+%22100+cubits%22&dq=khet+twisted+cord+%22100+cubits%22&num=100&ei=Yeb_SdZrgoTKBIL61IIL&pgis=1
>http://tinyurl.com/cbowu2
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cgz6ha
>
>and more here, with mention of the 'square' khet
>http://tinyurl.com/d69vso
>
>The first two items at your url have a Springer article where I can only
>assume they spelled it wrong, and the 2nd something that looks irrelevant
>to this discussion. The 4th mentions Khat again but not only is it a very
>different time period, I see no reason to take it seriously (a power point
>presentation about measuring the earth).
>
I agree with you about the wrong spelling. I always thought the use of
'khat' was an error.

I believe the power point presentation may be correct but concluded it
did not apply to the Turin scroll as it was from the wrong era anyway.
I indirectly made this point in one of my early articles questioning
Jack/Kangaroo about what was meant.

I am aware that these days the khet is commonly used as a measure of
length but there are many sources which define it as an area e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_units_of_measurement 
    "1 st3t khet, a field of sides 100 ordinary cubits ? 2000 m�,
      21,000 ft�"
With much modern usage it is not clear whether or not the modern
writer has transformed 100 cubits into 1 khet. I never bothered
chasing this as it was 'khat' I was after.



Eric Stevens