Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Hi Spiros,

I think royal cubit:remen is sq rt 2, not 28:20. I think the digit is based on the 20 digit remen. The first few paragraphs of my article talk about this:

In 1940, W.M.F. Petrie stated: “The unit of linear measure was the royal cubit of 20.6 inches. The half diagonal of this was the remen, a second unit of 14.6 inches, which was divided in 20 digits of .73 inches. Thus, by the use of the diagonal, the half of any square area could be readily formed and defined. That this was fully recognized is shown by the half of the area of 100 × 100 cubits being also called remen in land measure. The result of this system was that the royal cubit was 28.28 digits, commonly reckoned as 28 digits, and on one cubit rod the digit value is exactly retained, and the last digit lengthened, to make up 1.28 with the fraction.” 1 “Whether the Egyptian treated the well-known plumb-line as a pendulum is not indicated by any remains, though the plumb-line was commonly in use from very early times. But the notable fact is that 29.157 inches, the diagonal of the 20.62 inch cubit, which was the basis of all land measure, is the length which would swing 100,000 times in 24 hours, exactly true at Memphis Latitude. This is so remarkable that it suggests that it may have been derived from that observed length, and the source entirely forgotten after the scientific age of the pyramid builders.”

In 1883, Petrie stated: “The digit, from about a dozen examples deduced from monuments, I had concluded to be .7276 inches; here, from three clear and certain examples of it, the conclusion is .727 ± .002 for its length in the fourth dynasty, practically identical with the mean value before found. As I have already pointed out, the cubit and digit have no integral relation one to the other, the connection of 28 digits with the cubit being certainly inexact, and merely adopted to avoid fractions. Now these earliest values of the cubit and digit entirely bear out this view; 28 of these digits of .727 is but 20.36 ± .06, in place of the actual cubit of 20.62 ± .01. Is there then any simple connection between the digit and cubit? Considering how in the Great Pyramid, so much of the design appears to be appears to be based on a relation of the squares of linear quantities to one another, or on diagonals of squares, it will not be impossible to entertain the theory of the cubit and digit being reciprocally connected by diagonals. A square cubit has a diagonal of 40 digits, or 20 digits squared has a diagonal of one cubit, thus, a square cubit is the double of a square of 20 digits, so that halves of areas can be readily stated. This relation is true to well within the small uncertainties of our knowledge of the standards; the diagonal of a square cubit of 20.62 being 40 digits of .729 and the actual mean digit being .727 ± .002. This is certainly the only simple connection that can be traced between the cubit and digit.”

In 1957, Schwaller de Lubicz stated: “the cubit that measures 52.36 centimeters divided by 28.2842, or 20/2, instead of exactly 28 fingers, results in a very short digit measuring 1.85 centimeters; and 28 of these shorter digits would make a cubit of 51.85 centimeters, which has not yet been found as a cubit of 28 digits, but one often comes across the remen cubit measuring 20 of these digits marked on the large royal cubit.” In 1972, Richard Gillings stated: “A double remen was the length of the diagonal of a square whose side was one cubit. Using the royal cubit, which was most commonly the case, a double-remen was therefore 29.1325 inches (/2 × 20.6), and consequently the remen was 14.566 inches. It is thought that the double-remen was used in measuring land, because it enabled areas to be halved or doubled without altering their shapes.” In 2005, Dieter Lelgemann stated: “Development of the old Egyptian length units is connected to the Egyptian method to mark off a square such as the ground plan of the pyramid of Cheops; (Petrie 1934) found a description of this method on an old papyrus. Based on the remen = 370.4 mm, a new length unit was defined, the old royal cubit = /2R = 523.8 mm = 20.62 inches.”

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Nov-19 23:44 by Jim Alison.

I think royal cubit:remen is sq rt 2, not 28:20. I think the digit is based on the 20 digit remen. The first few paragraphs of my article talk about this:

In 1940, W.M.F. Petrie stated: “The unit of linear measure was the royal cubit of 20.6 inches. The half diagonal of this was the remen, a second unit of 14.6 inches, which was divided in 20 digits of .73 inches. Thus, by the use of the diagonal, the half of any square area could be readily formed and defined. That this was fully recognized is shown by the half of the area of 100 × 100 cubits being also called remen in land measure. The result of this system was that the royal cubit was 28.28 digits, commonly reckoned as 28 digits, and on one cubit rod the digit value is exactly retained, and the last digit lengthened, to make up 1.28 with the fraction.” 1 “Whether the Egyptian treated the well-known plumb-line as a pendulum is not indicated by any remains, though the plumb-line was commonly in use from very early times. But the notable fact is that 29.157 inches, the diagonal of the 20.62 inch cubit, which was the basis of all land measure, is the length which would swing 100,000 times in 24 hours, exactly true at Memphis Latitude. This is so remarkable that it suggests that it may have been derived from that observed length, and the source entirely forgotten after the scientific age of the pyramid builders.”

In 1883, Petrie stated: “The digit, from about a dozen examples deduced from monuments, I had concluded to be .7276 inches; here, from three clear and certain examples of it, the conclusion is .727 ± .002 for its length in the fourth dynasty, practically identical with the mean value before found. As I have already pointed out, the cubit and digit have no integral relation one to the other, the connection of 28 digits with the cubit being certainly inexact, and merely adopted to avoid fractions. Now these earliest values of the cubit and digit entirely bear out this view; 28 of these digits of .727 is but 20.36 ± .06, in place of the actual cubit of 20.62 ± .01. Is there then any simple connection between the digit and cubit? Considering how in the Great Pyramid, so much of the design appears to be appears to be based on a relation of the squares of linear quantities to one another, or on diagonals of squares, it will not be impossible to entertain the theory of the cubit and digit being reciprocally connected by diagonals. A square cubit has a diagonal of 40 digits, or 20 digits squared has a diagonal of one cubit, thus, a square cubit is the double of a square of 20 digits, so that halves of areas can be readily stated. This relation is true to well within the small uncertainties of our knowledge of the standards; the diagonal of a square cubit of 20.62 being 40 digits of .729 and the actual mean digit being .727 ± .002. This is certainly the only simple connection that can be traced between the cubit and digit.”

In 1957, Schwaller de Lubicz stated: “the cubit that measures 52.36 centimeters divided by 28.2842, or 20/2, instead of exactly 28 fingers, results in a very short digit measuring 1.85 centimeters; and 28 of these shorter digits would make a cubit of 51.85 centimeters, which has not yet been found as a cubit of 28 digits, but one often comes across the remen cubit measuring 20 of these digits marked on the large royal cubit.” In 1972, Richard Gillings stated: “A double remen was the length of the diagonal of a square whose side was one cubit. Using the royal cubit, which was most commonly the case, a double-remen was therefore 29.1325 inches (/2 × 20.6), and consequently the remen was 14.566 inches. It is thought that the double-remen was used in measuring land, because it enabled areas to be halved or doubled without altering their shapes.” In 2005, Dieter Lelgemann stated: “Development of the old Egyptian length units is connected to the Egyptian method to mark off a square such as the ground plan of the pyramid of Cheops; (Petrie 1934) found a description of this method on an old papyrus. Based on the remen = 370.4 mm, a new length unit was defined, the old royal cubit = /2R = 523.8 mm = 20.62 inches.”

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Nov-19 23:44 by Jim Alison.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.