I wrote, ‘You hold that the 3rd Dynasty pyramid complex of Saqqara is the earliest known use of the royal cubit.’
You replied, ‘Unless you have evidence that suggests otherwise, this is not what "I" hold, but the field at large. I have yet to see a reason to think otherwise, but it would be quite interesting if there were.’
My mistake - apologies, and all that.
I wrote, ‘I assume you are referring to Djoser - dated 2630 to 2611, according to Lehner (‘The Complete Pyramids’ 1997).
You replied, ‘Is there an indication a 3rd Dynasty pharaoh other than "Djoser" built the Saqqara pyramid complex?’
I don’t know – perhaps you can tell me.
I wrote, ‘The 4th Dynasty Great Pyramid dates to 2551 B. C. – again according to Lehner.
You wrote, ‘I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing the point "according to Lehner". Lehner, if I'm not mistaken, uses Cambridge for his dates which are the most commonly accepted.’
It’s because that is who my source is, and I am blissfully unaware of this Cambridge character.
I wrote, ‘So, it could be argued that the royal cubit was invented at the least 79 years (2630 minus 2611) before the designing of the Great Pyramid – and, if his singularly impressive C.V. is anything to go by, Imhotep might well have been the person who invented both the royal cubit and the seked.’
You replied, ‘Accepting conventional dating for the point of discussion, it is not something one could "argue", but is the state of accepted facts as they are known today which should be understood given the uncertainties of the length of reigns, or even which King's list one refers to, could be +/- years either which way.’
Er, um, quite right that man, quite right…
You continued, ‘ I'm not sure what your point is breaking it down to specific years when all that is required is noting "3rd Dynasty Djoser" vs "4th Dynasty Khufu".
No, Thano5150, that is all that you require, whereas I wanted to pin down the possible number of years (based on Lehner’s oops, sorry, Cambridge’s dates).
Am I not allowed to do this?
You wrote, ‘What one would "argue", however, is that it could have happened earlier which I did read a thesis that suggests, based on statistical probability of measured artifacts, the Royal cubit's first use "may" have occurred at the end of the 2nd Dynasty/beginning of the 3rd. Regardless, you can pick whatever source you want for dates, but as is widely accepted the Royal cubit was first used, yes, by Djoser.
Hmm, a simple ‘it is widely accepted the Royal cubit was first used by Djoser’ would have sufficed.
I wrote, ‘Now, I wrote, ‘p.s. For what it is worth, I think it was, at the earliest, the 3rd Dynasty Egyptians.’
You replied, ‘Quite a leap considering the 3rd Dynasty pyramid complex of Saqqara is already considered the earliest known use of the Royal cubit.’
I asked, ‘Would you please explain what you mean by ‘Quite a leap’ - as it stands it makes no sense to me.
You responded with, ,First you said: "If we knew who invented the seked and the royal cubit, then we would know the earliest the Great Pyramid could have been designed."
Then: "p.s. For what it is worth, I think it was, at the earliest, the 3rd Dynasty Egyptians.’"
Considering this is the accepted conventional wisdom, why do you think this then MJT?
Sorry, I don’t understand the question.
BTW, what’s with the highlighting?