Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jan Sammers - An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Giza

Jan Sammers - An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Giza

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by Khepri
An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Giza - Precession
An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Giza - Precession

More info:

Published by: Khepri on Apr 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Gizah
I. Precession of the Axis of the Earth
In 1925 T. H. Cole, the topographer who established the modernsystem of triangulation for the Egyptian state, published a report onthe dimensions of the base of the Great Pyramid of Gizah. Coleundertook his survey under the impulsion of the EgyptologistLudwing Borchardt, who thought that an accurate report would helpin separating facts from fiction in the matter of the geometry of thePyramid. But no effort has thus far been made to exploit the precision achieved by Cole.Cole reports the following data for the length of the sides:
West 230.357South 230.454East 230.391 North 230.253
The earlier survey conducted by Sir Flinders Petrie had ended withuncertain results; Petrie had difficulty in delimiting the exact positionof the corners, due to the disappearance of many of the blocks. By anextensive sounding of the foundations, Cole was able ascertain the position of the corners with reasonable assurance: he computes asfollows the maximum possible error in his values for the length of the sides:
 North side 6 mm. at either endEast side 6 mm. at either endSouth side 10 mm. at the West end30 mm. at the East endWest side 30 mm. at either end
It is generally agreed that the lineal standard used in theconstruction of the Great Pyramid is the Egyptian royal cubit of 525
 An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Gizah
mm. This cubit is based on a foot of 300 mm. (which is the basicstandard of all ancient metric systems) and on the correspondingcubit of 450 mm. From the cubit of 450 mm. there was derived aspecial cubit of 525 mm. called royal cubit; the royal cubit is aninstance of a septenary unit of length, because it is composed of 7hands or 28 fingers, whereas the normal cubit is divided into 6 handsor 24 fingers.
The royal cubit was the standard most frequentlyemployed in Pharaonic Egypt and its use is documented since predynastic times.
It is generally agreed among scholars that the correct value of theEgyptian royal cubit is 525 mm., but it has also been noted that often buildings and measuring rods indicate a value of about 524 and valueof almost 527. These values do not result from an imprecision of thestandard, but have a specific metrological explanation.In 1888 the Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch, following the ideasdeveloped by Pietro Bortolotti, came to the realization that theEgyptian unit of weight called
in Coptic) was the basic unitof all ancient systems of weight, a unit which I call basic sheqel andcompute as 9 grams. This fundamental discovery was further 
I have determined that septenary units of length were commonly used inMesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and medieval Europe, because they allow tosolve in a simple way problems of practical measurement involving theirrational roots
2, and
3. By using septenary units the circumferencecan be easily computed as 22/7 of the diameter (
= 3 1/7 = 3.1428). Thediagonal of a square was computed by assuming that the square with a side7 has a diagonal 10 or that a square with side 10 has a semi-diagonal 7. Inthe first case
2, which is 1.41421, was computed as 1.42857 and in thesecond case as 1.40; when greater precision was desired the result of thetwo computations was averaged arriving at a value
2 = 1.41428, which iscorrect to the fourth decimal point. In the case of an equilateral triangle, itwas assumed that if the side was 7, the height was 6 (6/7 =0.85714, whereasthe correct ratio is ½
3 = 0.86602).
 An Interpretation of the Dimensions of the Pyramids of Gizah
developed by Friedrich Hultsch in a special monograph thatrepresents the conclusion of his life-long research on ancientmeasures. Brugsch observed that in Egypt the basic
wascomputed in three different ways:
1) as 1/3000 of the cube of the foot of 300 mm. filled with water;2) as 1/10,000 of the cube of the cubit of 450 mm.; and3) as 1/16,000 of the cube of the royal cubit of 525 mm.
 He remarked that in the first case the
would be 9 grams,whereas in the second case it would be 9.1125 grams and in the thirdcase it would be 9.0439 grams. Neither Brugsch nor Hultschsucceeded in explaining away these small differences.
 The mathematical explanation of this discrepancy was provided byAngelo Segrè. Jean Adolphe Decourdemanche, in the concluding page of his treatise on ancient and Arab metrology, observed thatancient and Arab units of weight have set values that vary as 80:81.Segrè observed that this discrepancy is a regular occurrence in themetrics of Greek papyri and results from the fact that the cube of thecubit is equal to 3
cubes of the foot, since 1³:(1½)³=1:3
, but therelation was frequently simplified to a relation 1:3
The cube of 
Brugsch remarked that Richard Lepsius, by examining Egyptian sampleweights, had come to the conclusion that the
had a value of about9.0591, and observed that accordingly the foot should be 301.06 mm.; buthe did not pursue the problem any further. Hultsch also avoided the problem by using in one work the value of 9.1125 grams, equal to 1/10,000 of thecube with an edge of 450 mm., and in another work the value of 9.060grams, which is simply a roundingof the figure of Lepsius. Petrie, whostudied ancient weights without considering their relation to length,concluded that Egyptian sample weights indicate a
varying between 138and 141 English grains (8.942 to 9.136 grams), with a clear indication of theexistence of a variety of 140 grains (9.072 grams).3.
Hence, the cube of the cubit may be conveniently computed as 10 Romanmodii of 16 sextarii or basic pints.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->