CHAPTER 9.1 Traditions and myths in the historiography of Egyptian mathematics Annette Imhausen 1ns that books on the history of mathematics copy their asser- tions uncritically f other books, without consulting the sources! How many fairy s “universally known truths’, (van der Waerden 1954, 6) How frequently it ha tales circulate ‘his statement of van der Waerden’s rather surprised me. Itwas not that I did not agree with it wholeheartedly, since I have encountered just that situation many times myself, Rather, it was the fact that it came from one of the authors [blame asthe source of some of the very same ‘universally known truths’ about Egyptian mathematics that I consider to be wrong. ; A close look at the variety of widely-held myths about Egyptian mallee reveals that van der Waerden’s criticism is correct, butts not the only one that for the origin and longev- could be made. There are at least two further reasons , ity ofthese ‘myths. The firsts the modern populat ptCepoon Ot saaes aaa originating at least partly in its climate and geography which account fort Pattern of survival and destruction of its historical sources. ‘The second re obsolete style of historiography, which is particularly associated a as Waerden, Otto Neugebauer, and others whose names have become inex! linked to popular knowledge of Egyptian mathematics. outline the specific geographical conditions and the ee iy 'N more detail, then give examples of some of the more pro782 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS explain what makes them mythical. Of course, while many of these myths have prevailed for a long time now, there are also authors who have managed to avoid falling for them. Modern scholars traditionally divide ancient Egyptian history into three sepa- rate phases known as ‘kingdoms’, each followed by an ‘intermediate period’. Thus the Old Kingdom (2686-2160 sc), Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 sc), and New Kingdom (1550-1069 Bc), are each followed by the First (2160-2055 nc), Second (1650-1550 nc), and Third (1069-664 Bc) Intermediate Periods. The kingdoms were times when Egypt was unified under the rule of one king only. They are associated with periods of stability and cultural activity. The intermediate peri- ods, in contrast, were times when two political centres fought for supremacy, for example Memphis and Thebes during the First Intermediate Period. Within all of these periods, dynasties of kings are distinguished, often indicating succession of the throne within one family. Pharaonic history (c 3100-332 Bc) also includes the end of the Predynastic Period (c 5300-3000 xc) followed by the Early Dynastic Period (3000-2686 8c). The Late Period (664-332 nc), during which Egypt strug- gled to remain independent, constitutes the end of the Pharaonic Period. It was followed by the Greco-Roman Period (332 8c-395 ap) when Egypt was ruled by a succession of Ptolemies and finally became a province of the Roman Empire. Although mathematical works are extant only from the time of the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 Bc) on, the earliest evidence of writing already includes numerical information. The mace-head of king Narmer (c 3000 Bc) proves that the Egyptian decimal system existed, fully developed, even before the unification of Egypt into a single political entity under the pharaohs. Egyptian writing took two separate forms throughout pharaonic history: hieroglyphs were mostly used for monumental inscriptions on stone, whereas a cursive form of writing, now Known as hieratic, was used on papyrus and pot sherds for everyday purposes suchas letters, administrative documents, and literature During the Late Period, hieratic evolved into an even more cursive form, which is known as demotic.? Mathematical texts fall into two groups, those written in hieratic and those in demotic. The first date almost exclusively to the time of the Middle Kingdom (for example the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, pMoscow), with the exception of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (pRhind), which was written during the Second Intermediate Period but claims to be a copy of an older document. The second group (for example the Cairo Mathematical Papyrus on the back of the legal Codex Hermopolis) originated during the Greco-Roman Period. period etn tis cutline fellow Shaw (2000), where detailed accounts of cultural and politica events ofeach 2, For an overview of the variou an up-to-date account of the deci stages of Egyptian writing s stages of Egyptian language see Loprieno 1995, Parkinson 1999 provides ipherment of the Rosetta stone, plus a catalogue and essays about variousEgypt's climate and geography for the western world pharaonic Egypt has alwaysheld an unrival which even today can be traced by the succes of travelling exhib lled fascination, iti ‘ Egyptian artefacts’ and the use of ancient Egypt in modern noe tions often focus on royal evidence found in tombs or temples, while the dibs makes regular use of the myths that surroun is i objects, and the like. them in forms of cares magi What does the popular perception of ancient Ej it i mathematics? It creates certith ceiechalad in peeteree 4 one hand, amazing buildings such as pyramids, temples, and other monuments left by Egyptian culture have made such a deep impression on western visitors that they are inclined to credit the ancient Egyptians with the invention of ‘many modern concepts. This is one of the origins of myths around ancient Egyptian knowledge. On the other hand, the exhibits, which often consist of tomb deco- rations and other objects meant to secure the afterlife, may project an image of Egyptian culture exclusively focused on death and the afterlife. Both of these expectations are reinforced by an uncritical reading of ancient Greek historians such as Herodotus (fifth century 8c), who credited the Egyptians with theinven- tion of geometry but also described them as ‘religious beyond measure, more than any other people’ (Herodotus, Histories 2.37, 109) Corinna Rossi (2004, xv) has summarized the negative influence that this sort of infatuation can have on modern research: oversized architectural remains, its legendary wealth, it seems to be the ideal candidate to hide the key of ost by this attitude, the ith the actual histori- Egypt, with its impressivel obscure and fascinating wr wisdom. Even if the ancient Egyptians would have been flattered results of this kind of speculation have, unfortunately little todo wit cal and archaeological remains. ; ical record of| Instead, the preponderance of religious artefacts in the ate is ancient Egypt is simply the outcome of the country’s see ‘ts can climatic conditions. The consequences forthe prestrain AE our perception of its historical culture. The main topograph the whole le, which runs through the we fifieen kilometres wie ife possible, so that 1-3 (Koro mn soleil Clerc Fo Woh as ( rape Nr Ane Si d the gold hs: London 207 Dale (Hawass un and the golden ag turns (2001) {Ee Stargate 194), The Mum 0999 The Mary nr ae tetature with a c inancient and in modern times alike, is the Nil country, creating a fertile strip of land next to it athe (Butzer 1976). Only in this area are agriculture and uf ing sun/Amenophis II: le pharao ical assessment of Herodotus784 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ancient as well as modern cities have been located almost exclusively along the Nile, or on major oases. This settlement pattern has two consequences for mod- ern archaeology. First, only areas that are not currently occupied by modern hab- itation can be excavated. Second, excavations in those areas within the Nile valley will reveal only that which has survived millennia of damp. Perishable, organic materials such as papyrus are swiftly destroyed under such conditions. Only objects that came to be left outside this narrow strip of moist and fer- tile land, in the desert or on its margins—the location of ancient temples and tombs—stood a good chance of being preserved for the long term. Hence most of the papyrological evidence for pharaonic culture, but also for Greek and Roman civilization, originates from Egypt's deserts. This situation very obviously favours the preservation of archaeological and textual evidence from funerary and ritual contexts. So, on the one hand, given the humidity of the Nile Valley we are lucky that any ancient Egyptian papyri have survived at all. On the other hand, only about fifteen of them contain mathematical texts—since mathematics was used in the business of life, not of death—and these are dispersed across two periods separated by over a thousand years. It is exactly this lack of evidence that has enabled some myths in the historiography of Egyptian mathematics to flourish.* And rather than accepting this situation and working with it, trying to establish as many positive statements as possible while acknowledging the limits of the evidence, many historians and mathematicians have tried to exploit the scraps of evidence to try to prove ancient Egyptian knowledge or lack thereof of specific (modern) mathematical concepts. As Rossi (2004, Xy) puts it, such ‘theories do not necessarily provide any useful information about the ancient culture to which they are supposed to refer’, but rather provide evidence for ‘the culture and the historical period that produced them—that is, Europe in the last two centuries’. Moreover, this very uneven preservation of original sources helps to explain why Mesopotamia has fared so much better than Egypt in popular accounts of the history of mathematics. Mesopotamian scribes wrote their mathematics on clay tablets, while Egyptian scribes used Papyrus. Both cultures presumably pro- duced massive amounts of written text, including works describing, perform- ing, and explaining mathematical operations. Clay tablets turned out to be much more resistant than papyrus to long-term decay, in a wider range of climatic and Beographical conditions. Hence, while there are fewer than ten copies of Egyptian tables, for instance, literally thousands have survived from ancient Mesopotamia. Likewise, there are many hundreds of published mathematical problems from the most enthusiastic supporters of the Egyptians ‘wisdom by the yawning gap between the primitive size and precision of their architectural executions.” have been more or less driven to the postulation of hidden sharacter oftheir techniques and the great beauty,— TRADITIONS AND MYT! ‘HS OF EGypry, IAN MATHEM AT] 1s Mesopotamia but only about a hundred from nate from just one source, the Rhind mathem; the two cultures will always be biased because yt (the majority of which orig atical papyrus). A comparign of this situation? oe ‘An outmoded historiography of (ancient) mathematics Since the 1990s, the aims and methodology of ancient Mesopotamian Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mathematics have been ‘undergoing radical change, as part of larger developments in the history of mathematics (se for example Botazziniand Dalmedico 2001). For much of the twentieth century, Egypt and ‘Mesopotamia were perceived as the cradle of (modern) mathematics, and hence were often given pride of place in the introductory chapters of general textbooks and overviews. Such chapters typically attempted to describe the sparse roots these civilizations had laid down for whatever branch of mathematics was under discussion, from 7 (Beckmann 1971) to trigonometry (Maor 1998). As Jim Ritter (1995, 44-45) has noted, historians of ancient mathematics also held a peculiar place within the estimation of their colleagues: ‘Thus it is that the few historians who work on the earliest traces of mathematics are generally considered by their colleagues to be exotic specimens, content with childish babblings long since surpassed and quite rightly forgotten by both working mathemati- » study them, cians and those wh ypt at the opening of grand historical narratives isbased on the assumption that there is only one mathematics, which continues to develop as time progresses and—apart from minor aberations—inexoraby : now been recognized that this 1s above all that mathematics is ‘he societies and groups in This positioning of ancient E leads to current mathematical concepts. It has view of mathematics is rather simplistic. It ignores acultural and social activity, and hence dependent ont which it originates.* gina cane Jens Hoyrup (1996) has identified several phases it bere fs Mesopotamian mathematics: an initial “heroic era’ (1930: ) first translated the heroes (Otto Neugebauer and Francois THOT DSRET aha r ‘ . What were then known as Babylonian mathematical texts of translations’ 4 iumph algebraic interpretation; this was followed by ‘the tum snicsofechotthe 7. Thata II be achieved, and can usefull bring ov spec hae ; coon -en demonstrated by Vi Rites (995 200 i Una 0979 a 8. The be wn article against the universality of mathe elcted have now been reprinted oo Surstanids (2000 For Meso ea — has identified a distinct mathem eal culture. Fora method of anal 2-008). teristic elements ofeach Feyp tthe chara786 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS (1940-1975), characterized by a tendency to replace the Babylonian source texts with their modern mathematical equivalents. From 1971 onwards, ‘a fresh start from the sources through new approaches’ was made, resulting in a periodization of Mesopotamian mathematics and a better understanding of some of its indi- vidual phases and social background. The historiography of Egyptian mathem- atics followed a similar path, with the addition that, compared to Mesopotamia, Egyptian mathematics was perceived as more primitive, more accessible to the modern reader (thanks to fewer extant sources and the Egyptian decimal sys- tem), but ultimately less interesting (as no new manuscripts came to light). The first translations of ancient Egyptian mathematics, most of which were made in the early twentieth century, thus became accepted as ‘the sources’. Over time, it was often forgotten that ‘the sources’ were originally written in Egyptian, not in English or German. The results, not surprisingly, were sometimes theories that could not be substantiated by the source material they were supposedly based on. This holds especially for the numerous theories concerning the creation of the 2+n table, as discussed further below. ‘The move towards cultural context in the historiography of ancient mathemat- ics has improved the interpretation of Egyptian mathematical writings. It is now recognized that it is no longer adequate simply to re-express their mathematical content in modern terms. When instead the formal features and cultural context of. text are taken into account, a whole new range of interesting questions can be asked (Ritter 1995; 2000; Rossi 2004). In order to assess the sources fully, a range of expertise is required. That includes an ability to read the Middle Egyptian language and hieratic script, an understanding of ancient Egyptian history and culture, and a knowledge of mathematics (ancient and modern), From this broad base the aim is to overcome the traditional gap between the humanities and the sciences and to provide a study that satisfies readers from both groups.”° Despite these changes, certain earlier historians’ conclusions, which do not withstand critical re-examination, have proved surprisingly resistant to revision. Over time these myths have acquired the status of truths, whether because they accommodate a widely perceived (but false) notion that ancient Egyptian culture was overwhelmingly religious, or because it is easier to look at Egyptian math- ematics from a misleadingly modern Point of view. In some cases the evolution of the myth can be traced over time; in other instances, an initial, carefully-phrased 2. Since then, fhe and Eleanor Robson have produced studies that have taken our knowledge of Mesopotamian mathematics toa new level (eg, Robson 1999; Hayrup 2002). For an overview of the histor ‘graphy of ancient mathematics in general se also Net (2003). 10. However, individual researchers do not hav contributions to understanding and inte a recent mathematician's analysis of the e to be versed in all of the necessary skills to make useful "tpreting ancient mathematics: see, for example Abdulaziz (2008) for 2 n table. Likewise, teams of researchers can work collaboratively in critical assessment of each other's theories and methodologies is together. In such a team, however, acertai indispensable,— TRADITI ‘ONS AND MYTHS OF EGYPTIAN MATHEMAT! Ics observation became simplified and thereby falsified overtime section presents examples of such myths, and explains why they The flowing obsolete in current historiography of ancient science, ey are considered Myth no. 1: Egyptian 7 Consider the following statements: Itis certain from repeated examples, certain too from its rather good applicability frit corresponds to a value of plicabliy, (16 = 7 } 3.1604 for the ratio of the circumference to the diameter, which is far from the worst a math- ematician has ever made use of."' (Cantor 1880, 1 50) This means a quadrature of the circle by aiaa($) (:) wherefrom the excel lent approximation (3) 3.1605. The error is only 0.0189. (Engels 1977, 137) Inthe Egyptian Rhind Papyrus, which is dated about 1650 BC, thereis good evidence for 4 »(3) 3.16 asa value for 7. Simply by experimenting, mathematicians in early civilizations must have figured ot that a rope wound around the periphery of circle equaled just over thre lengths actos its diameter. With more accurate measurements, they probably discovered the value of the additional bit of rope at more than one-eighth of length and less than one-fourth. The earliest known record of this ratio was written by an Egyptian scribe named Ahmes around 1650 BCE on what is now known as the Rhind Papyrus: (Blatner 1997:7-8) above for- ‘This, as well as the relatively accurate value 3.16 for m resalling thre mula, gave Egyptian geometry a lead over the corresponding athmsics G } (Neugebauer 1969, 78; cf Neugebauer 1929, 14; 1934, 123) | te Anwendbarkeit, IL. Gesichert ist sie durch wiederholtes Auftreten, gesichert {st auch ihre ziemlich gut denn sie entspricht einem Werte A Beas ( ) = 3.1604 ME x schlecteste ist essen fir die Verhaltniszahl der Kreisperipherie zum urchmesse, der wets nicht de wet Mathematiker sich bedient haber of pi Te Ma a athematiker sich bedient haben. drews A bistory Pi the 12. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University ofS isTopielPaP eal of Mathematics archive, lhttp://www-groups.dcs.st-an html. Accessed on June 15, 2007.788 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS But the Babylonians and the Egyptians knew more about 7 than its mere existence, ‘They had also found its approximate value. By about 2000 nc, the Babylonians had arrived at 8 7 the value 7=3§ and the Egyptians at the value ™ = 4 (: ) - (Beckman 1971, 12) Modern mathematical treatment of circles is based on the constant 7, the ratio of circumference to diameter. We calculate the area of a circle as the product of + and the squared radius, and its circumference as the product of 7 and the diam- eter. The number 7 is transcendental, as proved by Ferdinand von Lindemann (Lindemann 1882). When it was believed that mathematics was universal, ancient calculations of the circle were assessed by their exactness compared to mod- ern formulae. In this view, a comparison of modern formulae with the ancient Egyptian procedure for calculating the area of a circle produced a value for the ‘Egyptian 7’ of 3.16 or 3 ‘The first of the quotations listed above is a statement by Moritz Cantor, made just a few years after the first decipherment of the Rhind Papyrus. Over time it has acquired the status of a truth that does not need reassessment: statements about Egyptian calculations of the area of a circle move from describing a proce- dure that is equivalent to assuming a value for w of 7° or 3.16...to the assertion that Egyptian mathematics not only knew the concept of 7 but had also estab- lished a comparatively good value for it. However, the ancient Egyptian procedure for calculating the area of a circle, found explicitly in pRhind problems 41-43 and 50, and implicitly in 48, is to sub- tract of the diameter from it and then to square the remainder. pRhind, 50 numerical symbolic representation representation Method of calculating a circular area of diameter 9 ht, 9 D, What is its amount as area? You shall subtract + of it, ()$X9=1 ()$XD, namely 1, remainder 8. (2)9-1=8 (2)D,-@) You shall multiply 8 8 times; (3) 8X 8=64 (3) (2) x (2) it shall be 64, Consistent with all other known examples, this procedure uses the diameter as its point of departure. It then comprises three steps, which use only the constant + and the value of the diameter. In order to arrive at the ‘Egyptian value for 7, one would have to express this Procedure as a modern formula: mleTRADITION: *AND MYTHSCRAGTETIANMGAtwaiitiGy opp and compare it to the modern one: A, te | Since a circle is a circle is a circle,” this exercise yields x == 16... While this may be a sound way to establish how accurate the Egyptian Procedure : remains historiographically incorrect to state that the Egyptians used tite imation of 77 which was 4. The Egyptians did not use m. Asean be fle the symbolic rere of the text, above, the constant used to calculate the area of a circle was 5, which was clearly not an extremely bad approximation of tr, but rather the constant appropriate to the ancient Egyptian method of math- ematizing circles. It is remarkable that secondary literature is more concerned with the fact that Egyptian mathematics arrived at such a good approximation for a than with the actually rather striking observation that Egyptian mathematics: ‘used a procedure that did not involve 7 but resulted in a comparatively accurate result, Another Egyptian 7 can be found in studies of the pyramids.“ One of the best known achievements of ancient Egypt is its pyramids, the three most famous of which are located at Giza. Did you notice anything in this last sentence? It should have read either ‘were located at Giza’ or better ‘the remains of the three most famous....’, since most of their casing is gone. It is therefore impossible to recover their exact dimensions. From the measurements of what is left, the following observations have ney- ertheless been made: dividing the perimeter of the Great Pyramid of Giza by its | height results in 3.139667 or in ancient units, assuming that the Great Pyramid did indeed measure 440 cubits on a side and 280 cubits in height, 3.1428571—that is, (an approximation of) 7. Strangely enough, however, the measurements of the two neighbouring pyramids fail to conform to the same ratio. Further, as shown above, the calculations of the area of circles in the Rhind Papyrus make no use of this supposed =r ‘found? in the Great Pyramid at Giza. Consequently : : rs it seems far more probable that the value obtained by carrying out an arbitrary its of the remains of es of measurement modern arithmetical operation using guess a : thatthe reslt ofa moder calculation. an ancient building are nothing but that: the 5) si ~yltures see Goldstein (199: 13. For a more sophisticated view ofthe circle in various cultures ses 07 Bg 1. For detailed discussion ofthis = ee Hollenbeck 01997 Rossi (2004 200.057 argussimilat 15. Depen hat measurements were used, and how the author « ding on what measureme : rons Values for = have also been obtained (Hollenbeck 1997, 62) ae Arnold (199) For 1985 16 Fora lsh overview of architectural practcsinancit FTP eT tina shat 8S Coincidental ‘discoveries’ of w or gin ancient Egyptian ac | 1990, 78),790 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ‘Myth no, 2: the Horus eye fractions One of ancient Egypt’s many appeals for modern students of that culture is its writing. Not only is hieroglyphic one of the world’s earliest attested scripts, but it comes in the form of little pictures which simultaneously look pleasing and con- vey a sense of secrecy resembling a code. While readers of histories of Egyptian mathematics make little direct contact with the actual Egyptian script—in- deed Egyptian mathematical texts were not even written in hieroglyphs but in the much less attractive hieratic—there are two groups of hieroglyphs that are encountered regularly in modern works on the subject: the hieroglyphic signs for Egyptian numbers and the signs supposedly used to represent fractions of the basic capacity unit, the heqat (approx. 4.8 litres). The latter are commonly known as the ‘Horus-eye-fractions’ because the individual symbols (ao — x \o() can apparently be assembled to form a very Egyptian-looking eye (fs). Further, this composite ‘eye’ has been connected with the myth of the Eye of Horus, which was destroyed by his evil brother Seth and then restored by the ibis god Thoth.” The alleged use of these symbols to represent parts of the heqat then confirms the impression originally voiced by Herodotus that the Egyptians were ‘religious beyond measure’ ‘This historiographical myth originated, as Jim Ritter (2002) has shown, in 1911 with the publication of Georg Méller’s hieratic palaeography:"* It then made its way into Alan Gardiner's influential Egyptian Grammar (1927), and has—apart from few doubts arising as early as 1923—since been accepted as a truth. However, as Ritter has argued in detail, the signs commonly referred to as ‘Horus-eye frac- tions’ were not originally associated with the heqat capacity unit. There is evi- dence for hieroglyphic versions of the hieratic signs, which are clearly not parts of the eye of Horus, representing the subunits of the hegat from as early as the Second Dynasty and then further evidence from the Old Kingdom. In addition, the later, New Kingdom evidence that was originally used by Miller for his iden- tification is far from conclusive (Ritter 2002, 307-311). 17. The most expl reference can be found in the Middle Kingdom version of spell 17 from the Book 2 ingdom version of spell 17 from the of the Dead: have filed the eye when it was injured on this day of the conflict ofthe two rival gods. What 4s that, the conflict of the two rival gods? ‘That isthe day on which Horus fought with Seth when he (Seth) wounded the face of Horus, when Horus seized the testicles f Seth. It was Thoth who did this with his fin; (Griffiths 1960, 29). 4 cae 18. ‘The relationship between hieroglyphs and hieratic is in some respects similar to that of our printed writing E handwriting, Just as some hands today are hard to read, deciphering hieratic can be more ot less complicated and constitutes the fst step in working on an Egypti cratic texts ing on an Egyptian papyrus. Editions of hieratic tex therefore usually include a hieroglyphic version ofthe text to indicate how the editor read the hand of the ancient scribe. Hieratic writing also changes over time, hence thy ' S over time, hence the need for palaeographies which list typical forms of hieratic signs and their hieroglyphic counterparts. anit al— TRADITIONS AND MYTHS OF EGypriqy MATHEM, ATICS 79) In the original ancient Egyptian documents, tl always written in their hieratic form, and look Thoth. Rather, they are no more and no less than what they ap value: specific signs to indicate a system of subunits of t ee Myth no. 3: rope stretching, right angled triangles, and Pythagoras We can im: , albeit without any justification yet, that the known that three sides of length 3, Egyptians could have 4, 5 form a triangle with a right angle between the two smaller sides.... A period which had developed the theory of angles ofr that computed the Seat [seked], we can also imagine capable of knowledge ofthe rightanged triangle with sides 3, 4, 5. This will have been gained substantially through experience without thinking ofa strict geometrical proofin our modern sense ofthe word. (Cantor 1880, 1 57) Another reason for supposing that the Egyptians knew of the 34.5 triangle is based on the proportions of the fourth dynasty pyramid of Khafre (Chephren) at Giza and of many of the later Old Kingdom pyramids. The same proportions occur in some pyramid problems included in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (nos. 56-59). (Shute 2001, 350) Claims about the supposed Egyptian use of Pythagorean triplets (especially | 3-4-5) have also spread over from mathematics into architecture (Rossi 2004, 216-221). Certainly, what we call today a ‘right angled triangle’ was not unknown: in Egyptian mathematics, as demonstrated by problem 7 of the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus: Moscow, 7 numeric procedure symbolic procedure Method of calculating a triangle. Ifyou are told: A triangle of area 20 20 Py and the ideb of 2 % i You shall double its area (02x20 40 shall result D, Calculate times 2 aox3= 00 i 1 Aegyptern se bekannt | 8. Deni +, gegenwartg allerdings noch ohne jede Beprndang, 8 Oe fevesen, das Seiten von der Linge 3,4, 5 2 einem Deicke Due 2° ino we ten Winkel 2 en beiden kleineren Seiten blden (..). Binet et WS © gen Di ‘used hatte, dase sie den Seqt berechnete,konnen wir auch de RERMMISAS ET hae da von den Seiten 3, 4, 5 ingendwie an einen | iste auen, die wesentlich erfahrungsmissig geWonne™ : iat oe farang tien Siane os Wor es igen geometrischen Bewei792 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 100 shall result. Calculate the square root. (3) Vi00 = 10 @) V2 10 shall result. id Divide 1 by 25. @Le 315 (4) 1+D, What results is + 1. oe Calculate for 10. (6) 555% 10=4 © @x@) 4 shall result. It is 10s length to 4 as width. ‘This triangle is proven to be a right-angled triangle by the calculations carried out to solve the problem; its designation as sepedet ‘triangle’ at the start of the text does not indicate this special property. However, the technical terms used here also include the word ideb, which is used to designate the ratio of two sides which encompass a right angle. ‘The area of the triangle and the ratio of the two sides encompassing the right angle are given. The length of these sides is to be calculated. The procedure trans- forms the triangle into a rectangle (step 1), and then into a square whose base is identical to the longer side of the triangle (step 2). Then the length of that side is calculated (by extracting of the square root in step 3), and finally the length of the other side of the triangle is found by multiplying the side with the inverse of the ideb (step 5). ‘The same procedure is also used in problems 6 and 17 of the Moscow Papyrus, and a similar one can be found in the Lahun fragment UC32162 (Imhausen and Ritter 2004, 79-80). There is no evidence for the use of the hypotenuse, or for its identity as the square root of the sum of the squares of the two shorter sides of the triangle, in any of these problems. However, this does not necessarily mean that Egyptian mathematicians were unaware of this property; there simply is no evidence of it within the extant hieratic mathematical texts. ‘The pyramid problems (pRhind, 56-59), cited by Charles Shute (2001 the second quotation above, are all concerned with the seked, the ancient E measure of a sloping surface which indicated the horizontal displacement of the sloping face for a vertical drop of one cubit. It was always indicated in palms (and, ifnecessary, fingers), where | (royal) cubit (approx. 52 cm) = 7 palms = 28 fingers. Problems 56-59 all deal with the relationship between the side, height, and seked of pyramids: from two of these quantities the third is calculated. For instance, in problem 56 pyramid of side 360 and height 250 is given, from which the seked is determined as 5 palms. While these problems all involve right angled triangles 50) in yptian 20. Egyptian faction are discussed further below is situation had changed by the Graeco-R 7 4 raeco-Roman period. Problems that involve Pythagorean triplet canbe found in pCsiro JE 89129/8913789139 (Parker 1972.35-40)— ts TRADI ITIONS AND MYTHS OF EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS (through the concept of the seked), neither their “hypotenuses’ (the ke sloping side of the pyramid from bottom to top) nor the Pythag length of the involved in their solution.” Therefore, while it cannot be ae i mathematics and architecture might have used Pythagorean triplets, ey Hag bly 3-4-5, it must be kept in mind that our actual ‘evidence’ for this is ‘ciel x ‘on measurements of the remains of buildings, which—as we have already ee may well be misleading. Myth no. 4: Egyptian fractions were restricted to unit fractions ‘Ahmes did not use fractions in the most general sense ofthe word, ie, implied divisions, in which the numerator, like the denominator, can be of arbitrary size, but only unit fractions—i.e., those which have an integral denominator and unity as numerator, and which he indicated by writing the number of the denominator and putting a small dot over it. (Cantor 1880, 1 21) Asthe technique of calculation developed, the set of fractions was extended to include the unit fractions (fractions which have 1 as a numerator). The Egyptian was not ableto write suvother fraction, except those which have been mentioned. (van der Waerden 195419) ‘The Egyptians could not possibly get beyond linear equations and Pure quadratics with one unknown, with their primitive and laborious computing technique. (Van der Waerden 1954, 29) had some, though rather negative, influ use of unit fractions, @ administrative offices To some extent Egyptian mathematics has ence on later periods. Its arithmetic was widely based on the practice which probably influenced the Hellenistic and Roman (Neugebauer 1969, 72) ‘The primitive, strictly additive, Egyptian way of com detrimental effect throughout, even on Greek astronomy: puting with unit fractions hada (Neugebauer 1975, 559) countered in historians assessments of the ancient Another myth often enc: 5 Koning, which was restricted to Egyptians is that their cumbersome fraction re¢l rae ‘ 4 instance unit fractions, prevented them from advancing in their mabe gr hs toproduce mathematical astronomy, theirneighboursin Mee A ee myth consists of two elements: first, that Egyptian mathematics it fracti o i “Koning was 50 © : L .d, that Egyptian fraction reckon! ing was so cumber to unit fractions; and secon gyPt a some that it prevented the further development o sce Hoyrup (1999) hagorean rule ii ber er, ah es “ondern nur Stamimbr sjurch anzegte 08 For a distinction between the Pythagorean theorem and the Pyt Ahmes benutzt nimlich nicht Briche oe heilungen, wobei der Zahler wie der Nenner von beibige dh. solche, die bei ganzzabligem Nenoer die inbstls ae die Zatt dee Nemners binschrieb und ein Panksshen dar 793INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS Table 9.1.1 Egyptian common fractions Hieratic Hieroglyphic Modern L > i 2 & l wr i x xX ‘There are two types of Egyptian fractions. The most frequently used were what are now called the ‘common fractions’ 3, 4, +, and 4, which were written with specific signs in hieratic and hieroglyphic writing (see Table 9.1.1). All other frac- tions were written by placing a ‘fraction marker’ (a dot in hieratic and the symbol <= in hieroglyphic) above what constitutes, in current terminology, the denomi- nator. This type of fraction corresponds to modern fr: unit fractions, tions of the kind 4, or, Hence, from a modern point of view, ancient Egyptian fraction reckoning was ‘restricted’ to fractions with numerator 1, unit fractions. However, a look at the Egyptian notation for fractions described above reveals rather that they do not have a numerator at all. It is possible (though not currently provable) that the concept of fractions, or maybe better inverses, developed through the generaliza- tion of the common fractions to the idea of the inverse of any counting number, for which a general notation (dot/—) was created. From this basic general con- cept, fractions of values (in modern notation) were created by selecting those fractions that would add up to this value and juxtaposing them in order of mag- nitude. For instance, would be written in hieratic as / > +4 (note that hieratic is written from right to left). While such a comparison with modern notation makes Egyptian fractions seem like unit fractions, it is more accurate to think of them as inverses,* and to keep in mind that the Fj yptian fractional nota- tion did not encompass a numerator. This was recognized by Otto Neugebauer (1926), the first historian to work on Egyptian fraction reckoning, who created a transcription for Egyptian fractions which respected their character as inverses. It rendered the dot/— as a bar over the number (‘denominator’), for instance 24, Pace Greene (1992, 36: “The conce oa cian cept of fraction as a part of a thing rather than the reciprocal ‘ sin measurement, from which it ws bsequently freed and abstracted. WhillIaprectiartuponnnes it was never subsequently freed or bin of fractions is most probably tobe sought in dividing and apportioning (Greene tena eaters tit the notation ft fraction, and thar res pti ths one eaten, icicate that the general concept of fraction 80 ote was exactly that ofan inverse. For Egyptian technical terms relating tf"i 'RADITIONS AND MYTHS OF EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS Wf =5- Neugebauer also used this notation for the common fractions (with 3 representing 2/3), thus providing a systematic transcription for all Egyptian oa tions, but obliterating the notational differences between the common fractions and the inverses. It is evident, then, that the Egyptians did not ‘restrict’ themselves to unit frac- tions; rather, their concept of fractions did not include a numerator. Hence a dif- ferent method was used to express fractional values of the (modern) form m/n2* Did this cause problems for Egyptian arithmetic? Can this concept of fractions be blamed for having ‘prevented’ Egyptian mathematics from developing fur- ther? What evidence is there to help answer these questions? The mathematical texts themselves give two clues. First, the texts come in two varieties: mathemati- cal problems (and their solutions), such as the examples from the Rhind papyrus given here, and mathematical tables. Extant tables are for fraction reckoning, ost notably the 2-+n table (found at the beginning of the Rhind papyrus and in the Lahun fragment UC 32159) and metrological tables for the conversion of measures (for instance, pRhind, 81). Jim Ritter (2000, 129) has argued that tables were created in order to help overcome technical difficulties with calcula tion, According to the evidence, fraction reckoning was indeed a tricky area of Egyptian mathematics. However, with the aid of tables such as the 2+n table, vith lists the result of divisions 2 ~ (odd) m in form of Egyptian fractions, these rvchnical difficulties could toa certain degree be overcome. A lookat the problems does not reveal obvious pitfalls for a of the Rhind papyrus that involve fractions competently numerate scribe. Second, another argument in favour of Egyptian fractions may be that they are the one characteristic element of Egyptian math ematics that spread and survived beyond pharaonic FgyP! One reason for a continued popularity may have been their obvious practicality in assessing the 5 ae 4 1 1. 1 (pRhind, 32) may look cumber size of a fraction. Expressing 75 48 ¢ 12 11f 28 ‘cal tions on some to us (especially if expected to perform further mathematica’ oe ci it), However, this representation has (at least) one advantage Over jy pot tude is immediately apparent. ‘The modern decimal ee oy 6 works much in the same way. AS for calculations, the accuracy os a at chosen as well through including or ignoring as many elepenta gh eR desired, thereby facilitating some operations. tions with 2 numer ow the use of factions with 8 ri sh Td ather be interpreted matical papy? 5, It is often stated that the demotic mathemst - see ae 59-262) argued, these sh tor, However, as David Fowler (1999, 2 divisionsINTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS Myth no. 5: Egyptian ‘algebraic equations’ .d the Hau calculations, whose contents are no differ- ‘At the zenith of these exercises stam nt to those which today we cll algebraic equations of the first degree in one unknown. (Cantor 1880, 32) ‘These aha-calculations are quite like Waerden 1954, 27) ‘These eleven problems deal with the methods of solving equations in one unknown of the first degree. (Gillings 1972, 154) “Thus, some 3,500 years before the creation of modern symbolic algebra, the Egyptians were already in possession of a method that allowed them, in effect, to solve linear equa: tions. (Maor 1998, 4) our linear equations in one unknown. (van der n ‘algebraic equations’ were at the centre of one of the most heated debates Egyptia of Egyptian mathematics during the first half of the twen- in the historiography tieth century. While scholars were in agreement that sections 24 to 34 of the Rhind papyrus constituted problems that are expressed today as algebraic equa- tions, there was at first much disagreement about the way they were solved and whether one could indeed credit ancient Egyptian mathematical practitioners with a knowledge of algebra. The question was whether the problems designated with the Egyptian technical term aha ‘quantity’ were solved as moderns would solve algebraic equations or by the method of false position. Note above how the similarity between aha problems and algebraic equations in the quotations from 1880 and 1954 had become ‘a method to solve algebraic equations’ by the quote from 1998, An example of such an ‘equation’ can be found in problem 26 of the Rhind papyrus: pRhind, 26 numeric procedure symbolic procedure ‘A quantity whose + is added to it 4 D, becomes 15. 15 D. Calculate with 4.7 i @ [D) You shall calculate its + as 1, Q)4x4 QD,x@) sum 5. (3) 4+ (3) (1) + (2) Divide 15 by 5. 3 shall result. (4) 15+5=3 (4) D, +3) Calculate 3 times 4. 12 shall result. (6) 3x4=12 (5) (4) x) 26. An der Spitze dieser Aufgaben stehen die Hau-Rechnungen, die dem Inhalte nach nichts anderes sind als was die heutige Algebra Gleichungen ersten Grades mit einer Unbekannten nennt. ; 27, This instruction cannot be expressed unambiguously as an arithmetic operation. It may result from calculating the inverse ofthe first datum, but an explicit instruction to calculate itis not givenators a molar pot of view, the assessment of these problems as predecessors of ‘algebraic equations’ seems quite straightforward. As the Egyptologi Eric Peet (1923, 62) commented in his edition of this probl ee eae solved is x +4x= 15. Egyptian ‘equations’ (of cot Bi Sia abies most notably the variable x, In line with the Egy Se ee y z 'gyptian concept of mathematics as a systematic collection of procedures, the statement of the problem describes an operation and its numerical outcome. The quantity manipulated in the operation is an unknown, and the problem is to determine it from the number given as the result The historiographical problem hereis similar to that faced above with Egyptian fractions. Egyptian mathematics has a sort of ‘equivalent’ in a modern math- ematical concept; however, itis different enough to require careful examination of its characteristic features. In the case of the Egyptian ‘equations’ another indi- cator of the inadequacy of modern assessments may be the argument that raged about the method of their solution. As already mentioned, scholars adhered to one of two groups: the first was adamant that these problems were solved by manipulating an equation; the second, objecting to this, suggested the method of false position instead.» For instance, the first group interpreted problem 26 of the Rhind papyrus in the following way” xtpxal5 can be rewritten as dxtpxa5 therefore $x=15 hence =3 and so x=12. 2a ry of the beginning of this debate see Peet (1923, 60). Late Stu se aay e ins (195), Vor es t ‘The controversy W25 1 souchoud (1993; 97): ‘manipulations of alg ted without Wieleitner (19: this group of problems appears in more mentioning the other: see for example C (1994, 364-368): false 29. Cf. Eisenlohr (18; Multipikation von 5. 2; der Hast also se division of 15 by $ ie ptrertanlich (TRE a then he See ee salation are obviows- 3 ant ge ath eta I oa 5. 5 oder was 10mg Division von 1 durch oe bis 15 erreicht ist, wird zuerst vorgenor 12, 2u welchem ¥ addirt, 15 geben muss the multiplication o! 12, to which U cr, which is the sam plied by 4= 12; the aha is thus TR ADITIONS AND MYTHS OF EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS 797798 INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ‘The alternative interpretative strategy, of false position, can also be easily dem- onstrated. Using this example, 4 is chosenas the suitable trial number, giving 5 as the false result. Division of 15 by 5 determines the correction factor of 3, which is multiplied by the trial number to obtain the result. Supporters of this latter anal- ysis have the advantage that their ‘method’ is a strategy that can be moulded into various formal expressions. That is, even if the interpretation of the ala problems as equations is given up in favour of interpreting them as procedures (which now seems historiographically more appropriate), the underlying strategy of some of those procedures may be that of the false position. Within the mathematical papyri, there are fifteen aha problems in total (Rhind, nos, 24-34, Moscow, nos. 19 and 25, UC32134A, pBerlin6619, 1). Individual problems can be assigned to this type based on their usage of the technical term aha ‘quantity’, found in thirteen of them, or based on their position within the Rhind papyrus (as in the case of problems 28 and 29, which occur between prob- lems 24-27 and 30-34). An analysis of the procedures they use reveals that they can be assigned to several groups, each of which applies a distinct strategy in its method of solution (Imhausen 2002, 155-158). The order of the aha problems in the Rhind papyrus reflects these groups. But only the problems of one group use the strategy of false position—which is therefore not a distinguishing feature of aha problems within ancient Egyptian mathematics. Conclusion Egyptian mathematics did not use 77, equations, or ‘general fractions’. However, to assess it as ‘primitive’ is historically misleading and based on a comparison with modern mathematics more than 2000 years later. If there is little to link the two, it points to the inadequacy of describing this ancient mathematical culture in terms of modern categories like algebra, trigonometry, and so on. The meagre evidence indicates that in Egypt, as in Mesopotamia, mathematics constituted a key element in the education of scribes (cf. Robson, Chapter 3.1 in this vol- ume, Imhausen 2003b). Numerous administrative texts (accounts) throughout pharaonic history indicate the use of mathematical techniques. Egypt produced a mathematical culture that predates most others worldwide. It was motivated by practical needs, but did not remain limited to practical applications (e.g. pRhind, 79). The limited sources available restrict us in what we can learn about it; however, we will be able to get a better understanding if we stop evaluating it according to modern criteria, and instead aim for careful, detailed description that is sensitive to its cultural context.TRA DITIONS AND MYTHS OF EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS Bibliography Abdulaziz, Adulrahman, ‘On the Egyptian method of pepperoni Gyr, of decomposing 2/n into unit fractions Arnold, Dieter, Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone ma: sonry, Oxford University Beckinann, Petr A history of 9 Martin PHO Re eer ana Blatner, David, The joy of 7, Penguin, 1997, Boi u ey Ha oe Amy Dahan, Introduction’, in Umberto Botazzin and ‘Amy Dahan Dalmedico (eds), Changing images in mathematics: from the French revolution to the new millennium, Routledge, 2001, 1-14. Butzer, Kal W, Early hydraulic civilization in Fp, University of Chicago ress 1975 Cantor, Moritz, Vrlesurgen ber Geschichte der Mathemai, pig Teubner, 188, Caveing, Maurice, Essai sur le savoir mathématique dans la Mésopotamie et Egypte anci ennes, Presses universitaires de Lille, 1994. Christianidis, Jean, Classics in the history of Greek mathematics, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 240, Kluwer, 2004. Couchoud, Sylvia, Mathématiques Egyptiennes, Editions le Léopard d’Or, 1993, Eisenlohr, August, Ein mathematisches Handbuch der alten Agypter: Papyrus Rhind des British Museums, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1877. Engels, Hermann, ‘Quadrature of the circle in ancient Egypt’, Historia Mathematica, 4/2 (1977), 137-140. Fowler, David, The mathematics of Plato's Academy: a new reconstruction, 2nd ed, Clarendon Press, 1999. Gillings, Richard J, Mathematics inthe time ofthe pharaohs, MIT Press, 97> Coldeesin, Catherine, ‘Stories of the circle, in Michel Serres (ed), A history of sien thought, Blackwell, 1995, 160-190. Greene, Mott T, Natural knowledge in precassical antiquity, 1992. Griffiths, J Gwyn, The conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and classical sources, Liverpool University Press, 1960. Hartog, Francois, The mirror of Herodotus the representation history, University of California Press, 1988, Hlawase Zahi, Tutankhamun and the golden age ofthe Pl the exhibition, National Geographic Books, 2005 f % y, 7), 58-62. Hollenbeck, George M, “The Myth of Egyptian Pi (1) sath? ein ancient Fay Hornung, Erik, and Bryan, Betsy M, The quest for immortality National Gallery of Art, 2002. " Hoyrup, Jens, ‘Changing trends in the historiography o cnsider’s view’, History of Science, 34 (1996) 3% a nainioseneed Heyrup, Jens, ‘Py vthagorean “rule” and'theorem' mirroroftherelation between paige at mre p,Jens, Py a), Babylon: Focus mesopoamischer Geis aoe heats, in Johannes Renger (ed), Babylos OR goo, 292-407 Wiege frither Gelehrsamkeit, tsi der Mode yan Kit Hoyrup, Jens, Lengths, widths, surfaces a portrait of 7 Springer, 2002. ) Fea ee nett, “The algorithmic structure of 4 papas in John M Steele and Annette Imhausen (eds), Under in the ancient Near East, Ugarit,, 2002, Mts is Imhausem Annette, “Egyptian mathematical fe (2003a), 367-389. Johns Hopkins University Press, ofthe other in the writing of araohs: oficial companion book 10 Mesopotamian mathematics: an ‘a mathematical problem texts» omy and mathematics Context, 16 4 their contexts Science in Comte at, 799INTERACTIONS AND INTERPRETAT! Imhausen, Annette, ‘Calculating th Imhausen, Annette, and Ritter, Jim, Kozloff, Arielle P et al, Amenophis II, Lindemann, Ferdit Loprieno, Antonio, Ancient Egyptian Maor, Eli, Trigonometric delights, Netz, Reviel, Introduction: the history of early mat Neugebauer, Otto, Vorlesungen ilber Gesc ONS J daily bread: Rations in theory and practice’, Historia Mathematica, 30 (2003b), 3-16. z 1 ‘Mathematical fragments, in Mark Collier and Stephen Quirke (eds), The UCL Lahun Papyri: religious, literary, legal, mathematical and medical, ‘Archaeopress, 2004, 71-96. le pharaon-soleil, Réunion des musees nationaux, 1993. nand, ‘Uber die Zahl r’, Mathematische Annalen, 20 (1882), 212-225, 4 linguistic introduction, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Princeton University Press, 1998. thematics—ways of re-writing’, Science in Context, 16 (2003), 275-286. Neugebauer, Otto, Die Grundlagen der dgyptischen Bruchrechnung, Springer, 1926. Neugebauer, Otto, Neugebauer, Otto, Ober vorgriechische Mathematik, Teubner, 1929. “Arithmetik und Rechentechnik der Agypter’, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Abteilung B: Studien 1 (1931), 301-380. shichte der antiken mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol 1: Vorgriechische Mathematik, Springer, 1934. Neugebauer, Otto, The exact sciences in antiquity, Dover, 1969. Neugebauer, Otto, Parker, Richard A, Demotic mathematical papyri, Brown University Press, 197, Parkinson, Richard B, Cracking codes: the Rosetta Stone and deciphermen! A history of ancient mathematical astronomy, 3 vols, Springer, 1975 t, British Museum, 1999, Peet, Thomas E, The Rhind mathematical papyrus, Hodder & Stoughton, 1923. Ritter, Jim, ‘Measure for measure: mathematics in Egypt and Mesopotamia’, in Michel Serres (ed), A history of scientific thought: elements ofa history of science, Blackwell, 1995, 44-72 Ritter, Jim, ‘Egyptian mathematics, in Helaine Selin (ed), Mathematics across cultures, The history of non-Western mathematics, Kluwer, 2000, 115-136. Ritter, Jim, ‘Closing the eye of Horus’, in John Steele and Annette Imhausen (eds), Under one sky: astronomy and mathematics in the ancient Near East, Ugarit, 2002, 297-325. Ritter, Jim, ‘Reading Strasbourg 368: a thrice-told tale’, in Karine Chemla (ed), History of sci- ence, history of text, Kluwer, 2004, 177-200. Robins, Gay, and Shute, Charles, ‘Mathematical bases of ancient Egyptian architecture and graphic art’, Historia Mathematica, 12 (1985), 107-122 Robins, Gay, and Shute, Charles, “The 14 to 11 proportion in Egyptian architecture’ Discussions in Egyptology, 16 (1990), 75-78. Robson, Eleanor, Mesopotamian mathematics, 2100-1600 BC: technical constants in bureauc racy and education, Clarendon Press, 1999, Rossi, Corinna, Architecture and mathematics in ancient Egypt, Cambridge University Press, 2004. Shaw, Jan, The Oxford history of ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2000 Shute, Charles, ‘Mathematics’, in Donald B Redford (ed), The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, vol 2, Oxford University Press, 2001, 348-351. Unguru, Sabetai, ‘On the need to rewrite the history of Greek mathematics’, Archive for History of the Exact Sciences, 15 (1975), 67-114. Vogel, Kurt, ‘Die Algebra der Agypter des Mittleren Reiches’, Archeion, 12 (1930), 126-162. van eS Waerden, BL, Science awakening, Noordhoff, 1954, Wieleitner,H, Zur muslimischen und aegyptischen Gleicht ¢ sleichi ‘chivio di storia della scienza, 6 (1925), 46-48. =e