Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement

message: The khet, as far as I can tell from other sources, was a unit of length (v., e.g., Gillings, Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs, p. 137).  The phrase "Ro or parts of areas are found as strips such as the khet which is 100 cubits long by 1 cubit wide" seems to say that it is an area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorwin (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources  . I see mention of a square khet. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have included a short discussion of the square khet (setjat) in the article. And the strips mentioned above are also discussed now. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: As with Greek and some Roman measurements, the Egyptians used the same or similar names for their square units based on their linear ones. That said, yes, the ḫt was a unit of length. — LlywelynII 04:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  khet 

message: Can we get a photograph of an Egyptian ruler? RJFJR (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some pictures of the cubit rod of Maya and a picture of the ropes used for measuring length on my own website. But I need further permission from friends to include them here on wikipedia. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  photographs 

message: "h3yt"? Is that transliterated correctly? Or do I need browser support?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  07:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 and y are stand-ins for characters we should be using, although they may require browser support. See Friesian's article on reconstructed Egyptian and its orthography. — LlywelynII 04:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Spell it

message: Flinders Petrie, sometimes called the father of Egyptology claimed that the theoretical length of the royal cubit was not exactly 7 palms, but rather the diagonal of a square of 1 ramen on a side. A ramen is 5x4=20 digits, therefore a royal cubit is 20x square root of 2 ~28.28+ digits.
The digit, which he derived in various ways including regularly spaced checkerboards of lines one digit apart is 0.727 inches http://www.touregypt.net/petrie/c20.htm ~1.85 cm and the regular cubit of 6 palms = 24 digits = 44.4 cm = Roman cubit.
This same cubit is found in the tunnel connecting the Shiloach Spring to the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. The digging of this tunnel is described in the Bible. An inscription in the wall (cut out and brought to Turkey, now on display there) says that the tunnel was 1200 cubits long. The tunnel is 533 meters long, which gives an cubit of 44.4 cm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_inscription  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeslyaakov (talk • contribs) 08:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be the "short cubit" or "standard cubit". There were apparently two units referred to as the cubit and did differ in size. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  1.5 Roman feet of 296 mm = 444 mm = 6 palm. 12.187.94.103 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian Ramen, Cubit and Royal Cubit, digit and Roman cubit 

message: Half of a cubit is called a "hand" in the Units of Length table, but other sources I have seen call half a cubit a "span of the hand" or "span." I also see reference to other sources say that a hand is 5 fingers. History of measurement calls it "span of the hand" and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/933255/large-span refers to half a cubit as a "span" and defines a "hand" as 5 digits. Can someone help clear this up? --Onmywaybackhome (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Turin cubit-rod clearly shows the hand (with thumb) above the fifth digit, immediately after the palm (without thumb), as do I believe other extant cubit-rods. I'm a total layman here, but every other source I've looked at today gives a hand as five digits, a value not far different from its present value. Is it possible that there is some mistake here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hand is 5 fingers rather than 4 fingers and 1 thumb. Egyptian rulers systematically use fingers (18.75 mm), palms (75 mm), hands (100 mm), spans (131.25 mm), feet (300 mm), remen (375 mm(, cubits (450 mm), royal cubits (525 mm) and ells (600 mm). The inclusion of hands makes the Egyptian standard commensurable with the Mesopotamian standard where 4 palms and 3 hands = 1 foot; 6 hands = 2 feet = 1 ell = 1 Mesopotamian great cubit.  4 spans = 1 royal cubit. The division of the ruler into palms of 4 fingers, hands of 5 fingers, spans of 7 fingers, feet of either 14, 15,or 16 fingers depending on whether you are using 2 spans,3 hands or four palms is related to calculation by the use of unit fractions.12.187.94.21 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand vs Span of Hand 

message: * .
 — LlywelynII 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: Commented out below:
It's mostly but not entirely cited to "MTP" and may have relevance to a history of fractions article of some sort. It doesn't belong here in its present form. — LlywelynII 16:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to apologize. I didn't notice that another sock of User:Rktect had added that and was participating here. See these edits mainly by IP socks of the same person. Any edits by this person can be removed on sight as block evasion. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsensical section on Egyptian treatment of fractions (I think)