I’ve run into a strange question, and it seems like the proceedings might make for a good opportunity for me to refine a description of the incorporation of data into architecture.
I was looking at a particular equation and it occurred to me that many people might not easily grasp the logic of it, which may leave too much room for rumblings about mathematical sleight-of-hand or chicanery. There are often rumors that us alt researchers into ancient mathematics are able to get numbers to “do whatever we want them to”.
Quite the contrary, while some discrepancies between datasets occasionally accommodate an especially broad range of interpretations, ordinarily once we start locking in our speculative values, we are bound to them and no longer have the degree of freedom for the numbers to be whatever anyone wants them to be.
The particular question concerns the Egyptian coffers.
I’ve seen some interesting work by several people in which the proportions of the coffers relative to other things – the whole pyramid, the earth, etc – are experimentally observed, but I’m barely in a position to know what to think with many of the most notable Egyptian coffers still remaining unsolved, in spite of most of them having some surprisingly “pedestrian” components. In a manner of speaking, they seem to half solve themselves before presenting us with the insoluble.
Notably, the coffers in questions have also resisted metrological analysis, which may be part of the problem if we’re supposed to be able to use Petrie’s “Inductive Metrology” to evaluate individual building blocks of a design. That is strange, because after the past six months or so, there don’t really seem to be that many unsolved mysteries left in metrology.
A dozen families of proposed metrological units have able to account for almost virtually every number they have been tested on (a great many, since the families were perfected through actual practice) with the exception of some of the Egyptian Coffers, and the “Best Value” for the Eclipse Year.
Wanting to move forward with Tikal because of a sense of much-needed momentum, I have not yet immersed myself in the mystery of the Nilometer Cubit or its possible connection to the Eclipse Year, but to revisit the question of the coffers at all, it’s easy to become curious if the mystery of the coffers and the mystery of the Nilometer or Eclipse Year couldn’t be one in the same. Do we have one or two mysteries on our hands really?
The mysterious coffer numbers tend toward the range of about 7.48 feet; 7.48 / (Eclipse Year / 100 = 3.4662) = 2.157982805 (perhaps not that far removed from 216/100?); 7.48 x 3.4662 = 25.927176, which isn’t far from the frequently used value for the number years in a precessional cycle, 25920.
I don’t know that either suggestion is correct, but I can guess that some people might look at that and wonder about the logic (or lack thereof) of mincing a figure in days (the Eclipse Year) with a figure in years (the Precessional Cycle).
However, in spatial accounting, we are constantly seeing such “illogical” gestures, and we frequently seem them take place across ratios. We also have our rule that “Constant to constant equals constant” and every reason to expect until proven otherwise that the values we work with whether they represent feet, miles, days, years, or other, do in fact often mince and mingle neatly to form other meaningful data.
With ratios like feet:miles, which is a geodetic modelling scenario rather than a geodetic measuring scenario, we get a very good look the condensation that goes into recording data in architecture; obviously it isn’t practical to reference a figure of “5 miles” literally by making a 5-mile long pyramid so we need some kind of figurative expression such as a fraction of the intended figure or a metrological ratio such as feet:miles even if it doesn’t seem to make sense at first to be mincing feet and miles.
As always, the available space or the proposed size of a structure can be a huge determinant in how a particular number can be expressed by it in practical manner. A lot of that may not make sense without the understanding that they are trying to be able to find a way to incorporate some of the same numbers into every design while at the same time permitting the designs to be whatever scale or shape necessary, by practicing a variety of tricks that permit them to do exactly that.
So, if you’re shopping for a pyramid, it doesn’t have to be a particular size, and it doesn’t need to be terribly fancy – it can send whatever messages you like, as long as it’s well thought out.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 