The length of the Egyptian Iteru

This is developed from the discussion:-

Published in Discussions in Egyptology 60 (2004), pp. 57–71.

RECONSTRUCTING THE LENGTH AND SUBDIVISION OF THE

ITERU FROM LATE EGYPTIAN AND GRAECO-ROMAN TEXTS
by

Gyula Priskin

Published in Discussions in Egyptology 60 (2004), pp. 57–71.

The first paragraph of this paper reads:-

The consensual figure of 20,000 royal cubits for the length of one iteru was determined
early in the 20th century by the comparison of lengths cited in hieroglyphic inscriptions
with actual geographical distances. Information from various antique and late Egyptian
metrological texts is collated here to support the validity of this figure. An attempt is also
made to track down the developments that led to a considerable change in the length of the
schoinos, the Greek counterpart of the iteru, in the second half of the first millenium BC.

We read a little later that:-

The first step in the right direction was taken by Victor Loret who reckoned that the
Dodekaschoinos must have been about 118-136 km long, so one iteru must have measured
about 10.5 km and therefore equalled 20,000 royal cubits (as he took one cubit to be
about 0.525 m; Loret 1903, 20). Loret thought, however, that this unit – demotic Ar, in
his terminology the ‘double iteru’ – was a late variant of the original iteru that
according to him measured only 10,000 cubits. He arrived at this result by the simple
reasoning that the first multiple unit in the Egyptian measuring system, the khet (xt-n-
nwH), consisted of 100 cubits; it then appeared to him quite probable that the iteru was the
100- fold multiple of the khet and so comprised 10,000 cubits. Then in the 1920s came
along Ludwig Borchardt who reinforced and clarified the findings of his French
colleague. In accordance with his assumption that the iteru originally denoted the
distance a ship travelled between two stations along the Nile, an idea suggested to
him by the connotations of the word iteru (it also means‘river’), Borchardt reckoned
that the itinerary distance between the southern tip of the Delta and Aswan was about 900
km. As Borchardt knew that the inscriptions on the votive cubit rods give the length of this
stretch of Egypt as 86 iteru, he then simply divided 900 by 86, and found that one iteru must
have been very close to 10.5 km. Also calculating with a royal cubit of 0.525 m, he then
again concluded that an iteru was in all probability made up of 20,000 cubits
(Borchardt 1921, 120). His reliance on the cubit rods to make his calculations implied
that this equation must have been true for the New Kingdom, and probably for all epochs
of Egyptian history.
 To clarify these statements further we shall use the correct length of the ‘Royal Cubit’
which is 1.718181818 feet or 20.618181818 inches. Note that for accurate calculation such
lengthy fractions are essential, they denote what we may term ‘target values’ which cannot be
applied in practical terms but they do allow for correct calculation which any approximation
does not. The value for the Royal Cubit seen here is within the tolerance that Petrie allowed
in his evaluations and this value fits in with numerous other measures as was very clearly
demonstrated by John Michell back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have demonstrated
the connectivity involved in the paper Cubit Values Correlation:-Egypt and Mesopotamia to
Stonehenge etc and in the paper Stonehenge Measures plus the book Measurements of the
Gods. Additionally seen in these works is demonstration of the use of the Imperial system
against the metric system. Research has made it clear that the feet and cubits etc belong to
the Imperial methodology and the metric system as used today has no real place in this line of
research.
So to the measures interpretations seen above with my interpretation.
20,000 Royal Cubits to the Iteru means, as there are 1.5 feet to the cubit, that the Iteru
has 30,000 feet with that foot equating to 1.145454545 British feet [1.718181818 / 1.5].
The mile which may or may not have been in use in the early days of Egypt was
always 5000 feet [the change to 5280 feet in Britain is explained in Measurements of the
Gods].
The stade was a Greek development as far as research has been able to determine and
these were generally of 500 or 600 feet. However, as is clearly demonstrated in Chapter 4 of
Measurements of the Gods, there has been considerable variation on a theme here to suit the
ideas of diverse ancient Greek commentators upon the dimensions of Earth.
Additionally, given that different cubits have different foot lengths and different
stadia values etc it is obvious that diverse Iteru values will also appear.

30,000 feet results in 6 miles or 50 stadia at 600 feet, 60 stadia at 500 feet, 120 stadia
at 250 feet.
30,000 feet at 1.145454545 British feet equates with 10.474 kilometres which is close
to the approximation made by Borchardt in the extract above. Therefore the 900 kilometres
measure along the Nile mentioned by Borchardt would accurately evaluate at 85.92705748 x
the 20,000 Royal cubits or the Iteru as evaluated above. This again is very close to the
recorded 86 Iteru.
In effect the 86 Iteru count seen on the inscriptions on the votive cubit rods evaluates
at 516 of the relevant miles, 5160 stadia at 500 feet or 4300 stadia at 600 feet with their foot
value at 1.14545454 British feet. In terms of ‘Royal Cubits’ of 1.718181818 British feet we
have 1720000. This is 559.7107436 British miles or 900.7671269 kilometres. The clarity of
the Egyptian counts here compared to the metric or British Imperial make it plain that this
works accurately.
What this demonstrates is that when approximations are utilised for the cubit values
only approximations will result from any calculation. The cubit applied is not 0.525 of a
metre or 1.722440945 feet but an accurate 1.718181818 feet. It is essential to utilise the
correct values which are demonstrated in the papers and book mentioned above in addition to
the book Deluge:From Genesis to Atlantis. Once the system is understood much becomes
very a great deal clearer.
The paper that I have used here is well worth a read however as it demonstrates the
confusion that can arise from a shortage of knowledge of the early measurements and an
understanding of their application. There has been much thought put into the papers
construction but without firm and fixed dimensions, factors of change from one unit to
another and much more there is no way that accurate conclusions can be drawn.
The statement from Herodotus that the Great Pyramid was 800 feet in length for
example ought not to cause a problem as it evidently refers to a different foot value. The
length of 756 feet or 440 Royal Cubits / 800 = 0.945 feet and this is the visible base line.
However, this effectively has no meaning, it does not relate to anything in the known
measurement system and on that basis the 800 feet must refer to something else associated
with the base line of the structure. In fact that is the case as beneath the paving at the base are
the ‘sockets’ that denote the actual base of the pyramid which gives an overall length of
760.32 feet [according to Michell; Petrie’s mean value was 760.49375, a matter of 2.08
inches difference; the intention would have been for Michell’s interpretation as this gives a
measure that is commensurate with many other unit measures]. The resulting foot value of
0.9504 feet [760.32 / 800] is indeed directly related to numerous other known measures.
This again clarifies the need for accurate knowledge of the measures in use and that
cannot be gained from metric approximations.
Using this foot value in relation to the Iteru we have 30000 feet at 0.9504 which is
28512 British feet [or 100 x the Aubrey Circle of Stonehenge centreline diameter] against the
34363.63636 British feet derived from the ‘Royal Cubit’ evaluation. Hence indeed, as stated
in the paper under discussion, Herodotus was using a different foot value, the difference
between these two units is 2.l34065454 inches.
Regarding these unit measures, we have a case of the original author to actually get
the basics of the values correct, John Michell, having his work ignored by academia in
general. While he wrote on other matters such as ‘ley lines’ there is no reason to ignore all of
his work and indeed many of the so called ‘ley lines’ transpire to be accurate sun lines that in
fact can be demonstrated to be valid; not all of that line of questioning was a pointless
exercise and it ought not to be ignored as is usually the case. Some solar associations between
locations are demonstrated in Measurements of the Gods and in many cases distances
between churches replicate the unit measures of the distant past such as 2.112 miles
replicating the 21.12 inches in the 1.76 foot cubit.
There is much to be revealed in the landscape via line and measure as also applies to
buildings such as churches, cathedrals and monasteries along with palaces; the ancient
measurement units were widely in use quite recently as is amply demonstrated in
Measurements of the Gods where examples from ancient and more modern sites and
structures are to be seen confirming this statement.