Doubtless some of these subjects have been discussed here before, but I don't think I've managed to find any conclusive answers yet...
Does anyone know where Mark Lehner (The Complete Pyramids), Miroslav Verner (The Pyramids), or IES Edwards (The Pyramids of Egypt) get some of their pyramid measurement data? (A shame none of these works have the annotated references one usually associates with professionalism).
At the moment, I'm mainly interested in the Bent Pyramid and Mycerinus (Menkaure) Pyramids - there's considerable variance between authors on these and I still can't find any explanation for that. Lehner quotes 617 ft on the base of the Bent Pyramid whereas I believe Petrie measured it at 621-622 feet depending on side, Edwards claimed the Mycerinus was 356 on a side and square in an appendix (thought it might be a misprint but it also says 365 1/2 feet in the text - page 167 in my copy/edition). Petrie (Pyramids and Temples) seemed to me to sound uncertain where the level of the base actually was, which might provide some explanation for the wide variance in Mycerinus baseline figures if someone or other had gotten that wrong, but I'm not sure where additional details or a clarification on that might be.
Nothing like spending years working on a theory and then having someone screaming at you because the pyramid in your model is ten feet short according to so-and-so, I'm sure.
Also, I'm sure someone could come up with a dozen different theories for the Bent Pyramid within the range of 617-622 feet (I probably could, shall we start the bidding at 1/Phi x 10^4 ft?), so I wish some of these authors would behave more like respectable academicians and specify their data sources and maybe even brief descriptions of the relevant facts associated with the measurements, BEFORE any of them complain about all the "crazy, unfounded" theories out there.
On the subject of Flinders Petrie, does anyone know any details concerning Petrie and the remen? It looks like some of the variance in Petrie's figures for the Royal Cubit regarding some of his measures may have come from not knowing what the remen was until later in his career, and trying to force-fit measures with rational numbers of units when it might be more likely that the cubit and remen were sometimes used somewhat interchangeably. So far I haven't been able to find it mentioned in his works earlier than the 1920's, some 20 years after Pyramids and Temples.
(I simply must add here that I think if someone were going to use metrology to "write" interesting numbers, some of the more interesting numbers may not be rational numbers at all - Pi or Phi, just for starters - so maybe there is even more to think about there?)
Does any know if Petrie was ever able to sort out his variances of the cubit? My impression from trying to review his remarks on the cubit is that he was never quite sure why these variances came about and almost seemed to vacillate between speaking as if it were either due to error on his part, or error on the part of the builders, but there is a passage I've lost the location of where I think he is talking about the usual cubits plural in the context of having proposed that different cubits were used on different Giza pyramids. I've not located anything yet to the effect of his have gone over his Giza data again after learning about the remen, but there still might be something somewhere? (It certainly seems like there's still room in there for there to have been things like pyramid that measured different cubits on different sides if there were multiple cubits in use, which there may be evidence of).
Lastly, I found reference to a CD-Rom with unpublished notes by Petrie, mentioned here
but no further information - I'm sure I spent hours wandering around the museum's website, but still can't seem to find a copy for sale anywhere, and the public library catalog couldn't seem to find a copy within 2000 miles of me - and I expect I'd no sooner succeed in borrowing one than in borrowing one of Maragioglio & Rinaldi's volumes.
Anyway, I'm sure others have been through this and other related mazes & labyrinths before - has anyone successful overcome any of these research hurdles?
Many thanks in advance for any advice, guidance, or assistance - and Happy Halloween!
PS - I believe it's been some time ago but I have to salute Graham again for his much-appreciated sentiments concerning Bartres' dubious reconstruction of the Sun Pyramid. It's my belief that archaeological agencies could perhaps do a much better job reaching out to and reassuring the public how we are to know that similar reconstructive mishaps aren't still taking place on a routine basis, at the very least harming the possibilities of doing meaningful metrological studies, if not also spoiling any chances of recovering what may be data reflecting hundreds or even thousands of years experience in mathematics.
Having seen what some theorists have come up with in a decade, I can only imagine what dozens of ancient mathematicians might have been capable of over generations. IMHO, we deserve that reassurance that such liberties are not being taken during restoration work that we may even be helping to fund, especially after some of the incidents that have already happened.