There is a lot of confusion about the actual lengths that Egyptians used to measure things.
For example, the Royal cubit is given as 0.51m to 0.55 m, which is quite a range. The cubit is quoted at “about 18 inches” or 44 or 45 cm, while the poor remen jumps between 0.3701 and 0.3750 m.
Then some sources claim that a cubit is 24 digits and the royal cubit 28 digits, while the best example of an actual cubit rod, in the Turin museum, clearly shows that the digits in the cubit are shorter than the extra four needed to make the royal cubit.
So why so much confusion?
Having played around a lot with the numbers, in the process discovering or rediscovering assorted formulas both for the royal cubit and the parts of the cubit, with varying degrees of accuracy, some ideas bubbled up.
The strange system the pyramid builders and/or the ancient Egyptians used for measuring has been bothering me for a while. On the one hand, we have the logical divisions of the cubit, into nice 15cm chunks and smaller, while on the other hand we have the royal cubit as π/6 which is a horrible irrational number.
So on the face of it it seems odd that there should be some relationship between a cubit at 0.4500m and a royal cubit at 0.5236+ m. The difference is 0.07356+, and trying ratios does not get us very far.
But my intuition was insisting that there must be some easy connection between the two. So I played around a bit, and noticed that cubit/royal cubit was around 0.8594, which rang a bell, as 0.5236 x phi is 0.8472.
Updated versions of the different ways of approximating the cubit. Also includes separate table for Grand Metre (1 plus royal cubit) == 1.5236…. == 1.524.
These are done with pi, phi, e, roots and powers (usually of basic primes), as well as ln, log, sin, cos and tan.
See square roots, cube roots and ln(4) for formulas not shown below.
Changelog at the bottom.See also The Magical Mystical Royal Cubit for the Pretty Picture version.
Let the maths do the talking….
Click images to enlarge.
Cubit formulas rounding to 0.5236 m
I’ve rearranged the formulas in Cubit parts and more, updated to be sorted by the general method used. This shows the patterns between the different divisions better.
2018-12-16: Added some formulas for Royal Cubit and Great Span (half royal cubit)
2018-12-18: Added formulas based directly on π, and also √2/π
2019-01-15: Added formulas for “double pole”, standardised a lot of the formulas to use same denominator, to better show link between formula and number of digits, added page for formulas based on e/π∛3, added tau-equivalent formulas to pi page, added inch, and assorted minor tweaks and corrections.
While playing around with the calculator, I stumbled onto the very close identity, where ln(4) plus royal cubit is very close to inverse of the royal cubit.
A bit of rearranging of this identity, replacing the royal cubit by x, allows us to solve for x using the high-school quadratic formula, and thus get a very close approximation for the royal cubit… there are five zeroes after the decimal point if we subtract the royal cubit from the answer.
Here’s the maths: (click to enlarge)
Getting the royal cubit from a simple quadratic equation.
The difference between x above and ₢ (as π/6) comes out at -0.00000727677051.
To borrow a phrase from Robert Bauval, this falls under the Spooky Stuff category.
It is a very strange connection between the Grand Metre (1 + royal cubit), the base of the natural logarithm ⅇ, and the royal cubit as measured in inches.
2018-11-29: added Spooky Stuff 7 and 8
2018-12-03: added Spooky Stuff 9
2018-12-04: added Spooky Stuff 10
Royal cubit, e and inch
I have no explanation for this. It just highlights again the ancient origins of the metre, inch and royal cubit, and how they mysteriously link together with π and ⅇ. But what about φ you ask?…. here you go:
As previously shown (here and here), φe/8.4 is a good approximation (0.5236) for the Royal Cubit.
But, you may ask, what’s so special about 8.4?
Well the 8.4 is actually the simplified version of the numbers that came out when deriving the relationship. But we can go in the other direction as well, and explode 8.4 into various components and equivalent fractions.
We can do some exposition as follows:
The nautical mile has a chequered history. The basic idea was to have it set to one degree of arc of the circumference, but that depends on what latitude you are at. You can read Wiki’s take for some background.
Anyway, yes, that royal cubit can be related to a good approximation of the nautical mile, given that the exact definition has varied over time. It’s currently “defined” at 1852 metres.