🚀 go-pugleaf

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 , 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...http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...
>
> 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 identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
> and a semi-draped Venus
>
> . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
> published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
> ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
> coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
> A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
> of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
> usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
> (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
> first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
> settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>
> The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
> conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
> itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
> have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
> unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
> ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
> called Roman for at least 150 years.
>
> The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
> visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
> Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
> Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
> culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
> Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
> Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
> new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
> Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
> Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
> be re-examined.
>
> As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
> the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
> Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
> are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
> nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
> east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
> until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
> area, and the wells are in fact dug near the contact zone. The pinkish
> granite was quarried at one time, probably in the Roman period.
> Extensively worked gold mines follow the quartz veins in the Fawakhir
> granite. The main group of ruins lies in a narrow wadi eroded in the
> granite; the steep sides serve as a boundary and almost as a town
> wall. The site's southeastern end is defined by a high dike of tough
> felsite rock with a natural gate in it.
>
> Pre-Byzantine remains at Bir Umm Fawakhir are limited.
>
>  From the pharaonic period we have, perhaps, a few sherds and above
> all, the Turin Papyrus.
>
>  The latter may be read as a map drawn up in the Twentieth Dynasty to
> show the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat and the gold mines
> a little farther to the east at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>
>  Evidence for a Ptolemaic presence is limited to the now lost temple
> Ptolemy III Euergetes, though we have many travelers' descriptions of
> it. Our attempts to locate the site of the temple or any surviving
> blocks have not yet succeeded.http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/91-92/fawakhir.html
>
> Mal Fabian
>
> Mount Barker
> South Australia
> No interviews except by
>  SBS or Aljazeera

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.

On May 1, 9:27 pm, 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 , 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 identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
> > and a semi-draped Venus
>
> > . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
> > published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
> > ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
> > coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
> > A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
> > of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
> > usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
> > (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
> > first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
> > settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>
> > The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
> > conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
> > itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
> > have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
> > unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
> > ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
> > called Roman for at least 150 years.
>
> > The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
> > visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
> > Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
> > Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
> > culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
> > Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
> > Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
> > new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
> > Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
> > Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
> > be re-examined.
>
> > As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
> > the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
> > Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
> > are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
> > nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
> > east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
> > until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
> > area, and the wells are in fact dug near the contact zone. The pinkish
> > granite was quarried at one time, probably in the Roman period.
> > Extensively worked gold mines follow the quartz veins in the Fawakhir
> > granite. The main group of ruins lies in a narrow wadi eroded in the
> > granite; the steep sides serve as a boundary and almost as a town
> > wall. The site's southeastern end is defined by a high dike of tough
> > felsite rock with a natural gate in it.
>
> > Pre-Byzantine remains at Bir Umm Fawakhir are limited.
>
> >  From the pharaonic period we have, perhaps, a few sherds and above
> > all, the Turin Papyrus.
>
> >  The latter may be read as a map drawn up in the Twentieth Dynasty to
> > show the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat and the gold mines
> > a little farther to the east at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>
> >  Evidence for a Ptolemaic presence is limited to the now lost temple
> > Ptolemy III Euergetes, though we have many travelers' descriptions of
> > it. Our attempts to locate the site of the temple or any surviving
> > blocks have not yet succeeded.http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/91-92/fawakhir.html
>
> > Mal Fabian
>
> > Mount Barker
> > South Australia
> > No interviews except by
> >  SBS or Aljazeera
>
> 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.

Hi  jack

I am familiar with the khet and cubit

On the turin papyrus the distance from the stone quarry to the gold
mine is shown in a very unusual way , the statement is repeated 3
times over at the one  place , may indicate an extremely long way

the author of the map is a very well respected scholar who KNEW the
area very very well

Why would he repeat a statement 3 times is it was simply a few km down
the road  WHY ???

" The distance from the stone quarry is [missing ] khet " this  is
repeated 3 times when once is normal , why repeat the same sentence 3
times on the one spot if it is a simple few khet

WHY if such an eminent scholar made such a beautiful map and he knew
the area , WHY do none of the features exist at Bir Umm Fawakhir , no
artifact appear at the site for 1000 years after this map was made , a
few km from central Egypt , in a country full of artifacts

Even the natural features do not match the Egyptian site

While an aerial photo of the south Australian site could be laid
PERFECTLY on top of the Turin gold mine and fit 100% in every detail
EXACTLY

And the man made remnants  of a MASSIVE gold mine area all sitting
there as if mining stopped at the time the map was made 3160 years ago

Adjusted for weathering , one site matches 100% the other nil evidence
matches

I suspect its a mistranslation , that was altered to help hide the
fact the gold mine was 15,0000 km away and that made no sense to an
earlier scholar who altered / removed the confusing number

I spent the day at the South Australian site AGAIN today jack

I have been wrong mant times in my life mate

A prospector is wrong very often , there is noshame being wrong ,

Prospectors are wrong far more often than they are right

BUT you always keep following the evidence IF the evidence continues
to lead you towards your goal

I have followed the evidence for 50 years on this site

It is EXACTLY identical to the gold mine described in the Turin
papyrus jack

There is no mistake

AGAIN today more evidence flooded in now that I have a map and a zoom
the minute detail is simply going to the site to confirm each and
every detail

there is no point debating it mate

The mine IS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

On this occasion kanga is right mate

I can fully understand your skepticism mate

One day somebody who KNOWS what a 3160 year old mine should look like
will stop and look  , many expect to see a mummy or a pyramid , or a
city

it is a mine at the end of the earth , it was clearly abandoned soon
after the map was made

A million ton or rock was moved and processed , and the features are
there EXACTLY as they should be in every way  , with very small recent
disturbance , that can be seen as recent

The vast mining activity speaks for itself , the undisturbed / un
mined areas near the buildings marked on the map  ,  is itself
evidence , they are in their natural state while areas  around show
the signs of mining activity

roads are all visible exactly as shown

river is exactly where shown

waste rock is exactly where expected

powdered rock is exactly at the area marked refinery

the stele on the road from the ocean ,  to welcome visitors and show
who owns the site  to the site is exactly where expected , as visitors
would enter from the sea port to the HQ  ,   not one of the other 4
roads marked   , fits the site , that road is closest to the sea and
would have the stele at the entrance to the mine site ,  used by
dignitaries visiting from over seas , while the other roads would be
to service the miners show no marked descriptions , locals would not
need a map or a sign to show them the way

the sites marked as the treasury is central as are the mine managers
residence areas expected the 2 highest points at the site , exactly as
you expect  , exactly as shown on the papyrus ,showing no sign of
being mined

There is no doubt its the SAME mine mate

kanga
======

On Fri, 1 May 2009 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@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. See
http://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.


>> ... 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...http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...
>>
>> 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 identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
>> and a semi-draped Venus
>>
>> . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
>> published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
>> ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
>> coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
>> A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
>> of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
>> usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
>> (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
>> first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
>> settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>>
>> The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
>> conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
>> itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
>> have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
>> unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
>> ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
>> called Roman for at least 150 years.
>>
>> The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
>> visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
>> Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
>> Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
>> culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
>> Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
>> Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
>> new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
>> Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
>> Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
>> be re-examined.
>>
>> As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
>> the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
>> Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
>> are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
>> nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
>> east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
>> until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
>> area, and the wells are in fact dug near the contact zone. The pinkish
>> granite was quarried at one time, probably in the Roman period.
>> Extensively worked gold mines follow the quartz veins in the Fawakhir
>> granite. The main group of ruins lies in a narrow wadi eroded in the
>> granite; the steep sides serve as a boundary and almost as a town
>> wall. The site's southeastern end is defined by a high dike of tough
>> felsite rock with a natural gate in it.
>>
>> Pre-Byzantine remains at Bir Umm Fawakhir are limited.
>>
>>  From the pharaonic period we have, perhaps, a few sherds and above
>> all, the Turin Papyrus.
>>
>>  The latter may be read as a map drawn up in the Twentieth Dynasty to
>> show the bekhen-stone quarries in the Wadi Hammamat and the gold mines
>> a little farther to the east at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>>
>>  Evidence for a Ptolemaic presence is limited to the now lost temple
>> Ptolemy III Euergetes, though we have many travelers' descriptions of
>> it. Our attempts to locate the site of the temple or any surviving
>> blocks have not yet succeeded.http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/91-92/fawakhir.html
>>
>> Mal Fabian
>>
>> Mount Barker
>> South Australia
>> No interviews except by
>>  SBS or Aljazeera
>
>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.



Eric Stevens

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.
>
> >> ... 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 identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
> >> and a semi-draped Venus
>
> >> . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
> >> published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
> >> ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
> >> coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
> >> A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
> >> of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
> >> usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
> >> (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
> >> first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
> >> settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>
> >> The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
> >> conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
> >> itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
> >> have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
> >> unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
> >> ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
> >> called Roman for at least 150 years.
>
> >> The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
> >> visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
> >> Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
> >> Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
> >> culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
> >> Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
> >> Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
> >> new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
> >> Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
> >> Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
> >> be re-examined.
>
> >> As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
> >> the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
> >> Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
> >> are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
> >> nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
> >> east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
> >> until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
> >> area, and the wells are in fact
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just like English there is a khet distance and a khet area.

and

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]


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

On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@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 example
http://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/neywetaten/measures.htm

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 identified by Couyat as a nude Apollo
>> >> and a semi-draped Venus
>>
>> >> . In the wake of renewed mining activity in 1940 and 1941, Guéraud
>> >> published sixty or so ostraca found in the mining debris along with
>> >> ancient grinding stones, pottery vessels, lamps, beads, and a few
>> >> coins. Paleographically dated to the late first and second centuries
>> >> A.D., seven ostraca have Latin writing and the rest Greek. Almost all
>> >> of them have to do with military personnel in the Eastern Desert, and
>> >> usually with provisions sent or desired. Zitterkopf and Sidebotham
>> >> (1989) in their detailed survey of the Coptos to Quseir route were the
>> >> first, however, to publish a Byzantine date for the sherds and ancient
>> >> settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir.
>>
>> >> The published accounts of the site are fragmentary and sometimes
>> >> conflicting, and without good maps either of the region or of the site
>> >> itself it is difficult to resolve the problems. Some parts of the site
>> >> have been destroyed, such as the Ptolemaic temple, and others remain
>> >> unpublished, such as the artifacts found at the same time as the
>> >> ostraca. Perhaps most seriously, the main body of ruins was mistakenly
>> >> called Roman for at least 150 years.
>>
>> >> The misidentification may have been due partly to the difficulty of
>> >> visiting the site, and partly to the long-held belief that the
>> >> Byzantine presence in the desert was minimal or non-existent.
>> >> Alexandria indeed dominated Egypt politically, economically,
>> >> culturally, and religiously, but there are scattered references to
>> >> Clysma (Suez), Antinoopolis, and Myos Hormos (north of Bir Umm
>> >> Fawakhir), and the ancient port at Berenice to the south. In light of
>> >> new evidence from sites such as Abu Sha'ar, Wadi Nakheil, Bir Umm
>> >> Fawakhir, and what can be gleaned from old accounts concerning
>> >> Berenice, the idea of Byzantine neglect of the Eastern Desert needs to
>> >> be re-examined.
>>
>> >> As part of the initial work, the project carried out a brief study of
>> >> the local geology, which explains a great deal about the layout of Bir
>> >> Umm Fawakhir and about its reasons for existence. The only resources
>> >> are mineral; the site lies in the middle of a hyperarid desert where
>> >> nothing larger than camel thorn grows. The Fawakhir granite to the
>> >> east is the aquifer; the water is carried in fine cracks in the rock
>> >> until it meets the dense ultramafic rocks at the western end of the
>> >> area, and the wells are in fact
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>



Eric Stevens

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

On Fri, 1 May 2009 14:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

>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?

They may not be. But you have to show that they are relevant.
>
>Are you one of those "I don't know anything I haven't found myself"
>types?

If you dig back about 12-15 years you will find that I have already
demonstrated a knowledge of ancient Egyptian measuring systems.

I'm not trying to come the heavy. All I was asking was what was it
that Kangarooistan intended by the use of the word 'khat'. You could
say that you "don't know" but instead you have buried with irrelevant
quotes of articles which could more properly dealt with via a URL.

>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
>
>
>
>
>



Eric Stevens

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.

hasta

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.



Eric Stevens

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. 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.

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

On May 2, 7:35 pm, 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.
>
> hasta

I assume the most respected scholar who is  clearly identified as the
person who either made or owned this map , it was found in his house
or grave and his writing can easily identify he was very important is
seen on this and many important documents

I assume he valued gold mines and the detail as shown on the map was
probably quite accurate and not a rough sketch or a tourists post card

I assume EVERY important detail is shown on the map in such a way as
to closely resemble the real site , possibly for some important legal
reason rather than a working map for general circulation , papyrus was
expensive

I assume some details not visible in any way today should be clearly
still found exactly where indicated even after 3160 years

I assume some things that can be seen still today would make no sense
at all until they are put into the light of day by examining the map

the map is genuine

Once the real site is located it wont be difficult to prove it is the
REAL mine

Nobody can cook up an ancient mine of several sq km and fool even a
trainee archaeologist

The site in South Australia fits 100% in every tiny detail and many
that only can be identified by using the map

The evidence is there

Its only a matter of time till its confirmed , there may be far more
evidence available but I certainly need no more , having examined
dozens of features shown on the map that ALL match exactly as shown ,

Its almost certain the colors on the Turin Papyrus are actually the
minerals from the site,  ground into powder to paint an EXACT color ,
for legal reasons perhaps?? , as there is evidence of ground
minerals / ochres  in small quantities in iron pots much degraded but
still containing the contents of different color ground ochres in a
thin iron " shell " of rust   , containing different colors of
ochres ,  from the site ,  that match the color as seen on the Turin
Papyrus , they MAY perhaps be examined , as I suspect the ochres on
the Papyrus were from the mine site  and could be tested and give the
water tight  case in one hit , PERHAPS

The combined evidence of the site leave nodoubt at all
The proof is only a matter of those interested checking the site withg
a tape against the map and testing the minerals as shown in different
parts of the siteas shown , and the roads are easily seen still with
the naked eye asis thespot of the water cistern set so as to feed
water to the refining area and waste tailngs piled up behind the gold
refining area are clearly seenwithh the naked eye

And the mine managers residence can be located at the highest vantage
point on the map with a large flat area in front marked WHITE with
quartz dust / waste as marked in size and location

The iron red color seen as 3 red lines running from the gold treatment
refining area can be still seen as iron oxide left after quartz was
crushed  , the iron wast was left behind and forms thick iron waste
dumps

The road between the managers house , on top of the site , marked as "
The place where Amun lives "[ mine boss? ] going off to an unknown
place  , actually goes down to harvest the build up iron oxide at the
lower edge of the site {top on the papyrus map ] ,  left from  the
hundreds of years of mine waste leaching iron oxides from the mine
waste to build up in the lower areas behind gold refinement area

Seems this red dust  is what was used to mark out the red area seen on
the papyrus map , seen  as surrounding the ,  centrally positioned
Temple of Amun / [ treasury ? }gold was seen as belonging to/ part
of , the sun god }  seen near the gold processing  area on the papyrus
map

So much detail , so very easily seen , still visible to a trained eye
with little effort or excavation and , fits so EXACTLY  , matching the
Turin papyrus " gold mine "  to the  SOUTH AUSTRALIAN mine , is simply
beyond any doubt

kangarooistan

=============