Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Bennu

Cubit Lengths

42 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This image shows my theory about how three different types of cubits are interrelated by geometry. Which one came first? Hard to say but probably the Nippur Cubit. Adding 1/6th of the Egyptian Short Cubit (one palm) to itself gives a Royal Cubit of 20.62492921 inches.

538sag.png

Edited by Bennu
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the cubit was a measure of length, not area. From the American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary: "An ancient unit of linear measure, originally equal to the length off the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 17 to 22 inches (43 to 56 centimeter; (Latin, cubitum, 'cubit, elbow.')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought that the cubit was a measure of length, not area. From the American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary: "An ancient unit of linear measure, originally equal to the length off the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 17 to 22 inches (43 to 56 centimeter; (Latin, cubitum, 'cubit, elbow.')

Yes, and those are lengths being illustrated. The Nippur Cubit is the length of each side of the triangle, not the area inside the triangle.

Nobody has ever discovered this very precise interrelationship before. When I found it I was surprised that nobody had ever reported it, especially the Sacred Cubit of the Jews being the diagonal of a one short cubit square. The Egyptians must have used that diagonal measure at some point. Maybe that's where the Jews got it from. For some reason, there ls no record of the Egyptians using the Sacred Cubit though.

I should explain that I started with the Nippur Cubit. That's the exact length of a bronze Nippur Cubit rod that was found from 2650 BC, 518.5 mm. The Short Cubit and Sacred Cubit were then generated from the Nippur Cubit triangle.

Edited by Bennu
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and those are lengths being illustrated. The Nippur Cubit is the length of each side of the triangle, not the area inside the triangle. Nobody has ever discovered this very precise interrelationship before. When I found it I was surprised that nobody noticed it before, especially the Sacred Cubit of the Jews being the diagonal of a one short cubit square. The Egyptians must have used that diagonal measure at some point. Maybe that's where the Jews got it from. For some reason, there ls no record of the Egyptians using the Sacred Cubit.

But how does one measure linearity (length; a line) with a triangle? I never was very clever at math/geometry. How does/do the triangle/s function in calculations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But how does one measure linearity (length; a line) with a triangle? I never was very clever at math/geometry. How does/do the triangle/s function in calculations?

You start with a Nippur Cubit, drawing a triangle with sides that length. Then you can get the Egyptian Short Cubit from that by drawing a square with sides the length of the triangle's height. You don't actually need to draw the square, just use the height of the triangle. But you ned the square to get the Sacred Cubit, by using the length of the diagonal of the square. As for how they got the length of the Nippur Cubit, I think it's an earth measure of some sort.

Another way to look at it is that the Egyptian Short Cubit is half of a Nippur Cubit multiplied by the square root of 3 and the sacred cubit is the Short Cubit multiplied by the square root of 2.

Edited by Bennu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How accurate do the calculations need to be?

Note:

  • 10/7 ~ sqrt(2)
  • 7/4 ~ sqrt(3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Adding 1/6th of the Egyptian Short Cubit (one palm) to itself gives a Royal Cubit of 20.62492921 inches.

538sag.png

The short cubit is six palms and the Royal cubit is seven palm.

You really (believe that you) discovered:

  • 6 + 6/6 = 7

Congratulations.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short cubit is six palms and the Royal cubit is seven palm.

You really (believe that you) discovered:

  • 6 + 6/6 = 7

Congratulations.

Hardly, I simply stated what the length of the Royal Cubit would be when you start with a short cubit of the length shown in the diagram. I do really believe that I discovered how the length of the short cubit originated though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How accurate do the calculations need to be?

Note:

  • 10/7 ~ sqrt(2)
  • 7/4 ~ sqrt(3)

The actual ones, as shown in the diagram. I simply expressed what you see in the diagram mathematically. The ancients wouldn't have calculated it mathematically. They would have done it geometrically as shown.

Edited by Bennu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ancient cubit was 21.75", then came the Assyrian cubit as 20.41", then the Sacred Jewish cubit came after the Babylonian captivity, as 25" issued by Kabbalists.

Pre Babylon, the Jewish cubit was 21.75"

I don't know when the 18" Jewish cubit was introduced, but it may also have been just after Babylon.

Originally, the cubit was not mathematically derived, but was judged by the length on the arm of a ruling individual.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But cubit rulers across Egypt and elsewhere show a great deal of variation in their size. Wikipedia says of the Royal Cubits "These cubits range from 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length, and are divided into seven palms; each palm is divided into four fingers and the fingers are further subdivided."

The Nippur cubit is known from one single example.

No one has ever found a Jewish cubit ruler. It's estimated to be 18 inches.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit#The_Egyptian_royal_cubit_and_Sumerian_Nippur_cubit)

The Jewish people did not emerge from the Near Eastern groups until long after both Egypt and Sumeria were flourishing civilizations.

This page has some interesting research:

http://www.egyptorigins.org/cubitrods.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this matters why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always reminded of Bill Cosby's "God and Noah" sketch when people talk about cubits.

God: Noah.

Noah: Yes God?

God: I want you to build an Ark. It's 300 cubits, by 100 cubits by 200 cubits. It must contain two of all the species of animals. Do you have any questions?

Noah: What's a cubit?

God: .... I used to know ....

It also got me into some trouble once at Boys' Brigade, one of the older members of the group had just done a RE lesson on Noah, and asked "does anyone have any questions?" and I piped up with "what's a cubit?" and earnt a death glare from him. I thought it was funny, and it was something all the kids would have been wondering too I'm sure.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ancient cubit was 21.75", then came the Assyrian cubit as 20.41", then the Sacred Jewish cubit came after the Babylonian captivity, as 25" issued by Kabbalists.

Pre Babylon, the Jewish cubit was 21.75"

I don't know when the 18" Jewish cubit was introduced, but it may also have been just after Babylon.

Originally, the cubit was not mathematically derived, but was judged by the length on the arm of a ruling individual.

I'm glad you took an interest in my thread. I don't know about the 21.75" cubit. I think that came from a guy named James Strong, didn't it? I haven't found any geometric or mathematical relationship between the known cubits and that one yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you took an interest in my thread. I don't know about the 21.75" cubit. I think that came from a guy named James Strong, didn't it? I haven't found any geometric or mathematical relationship between the known cubits and that one yet.

Sorry, I was going from memory, I just checked on that as 21.6."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this matters why?

It's very important when it comes to deciphering hoaxes of ancient findings, such as the 'lost ark of the covenant.' Don't ask me which one is correct for that 'mystery,' I'd rather keep that to myself, even though there is a chance a hoaxer will get it right - at least with measurements anyway. But of course there are many other factors making it impossible to pull a stunt.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very important when it comes to deciphering hoaxes of ancient findings, such as the 'lost ark of the covenant.' Don't ask me which one is correct for that 'mystery,' I'd rather keep that to myself, even though there is a chance a hoaxer will get it right - at least with measurements anyway. But of course there are many other factors making it impossible to pull a stunt.

You know, it's funny: I woke up today wishing the one person on Earth who knew The Truth about the Ark of the Covenant would swing by here and humblebrag about it. It gets lonesome being one of the Sole Guardians of Truth and I like knowing there are others who share my heavy burden of knowledge.

--Jaylemurph

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was going from memory, I just checked on that as 21.6."

What's your source for this cubit length?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very important when it comes to deciphering hoaxes of ancient findings, such as the 'lost ark of the covenant.' Don't ask me which one is correct for that 'mystery,' I'd rather keep that to myself, even though there is a chance a hoaxer will get it right - at least with measurements anyway. But of course there are many other factors making it impossible to pull a stunt.

Well that's good to know, but I'm assuming there have been many PhD dissertations written on this or related topics in multiple fields.

I know of an architecture professor at Syracuse that has spent her entire career looking at sacred architecture and hits on a number of these topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your source for this cubit length?

My notes from Ephesus Museum Turkey 1967

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's good to know, but I'm assuming there have been many PhD dissertations written on this or related topics in multiple fields.

I know of an architecture professor at Syracuse that has spent her entire career looking at sacred architecture and hits on a number of these topics.

Her research would be valuable, as I find the geometric illustrations that Bennu posted.

The two basic types of cubit the regular one and the long one, seem to vary respectively, but not too drastically, maybe less than 10 %. But when certain claims to findings were made on the ark, with specific measurements, it wasn't too hard to conclude then and there that it was a hoax as revealed a few years later.

In the mean time, as we can see from this thread, there are more cubits than we thought, which we expect, because it was a standard measurement in the old world, and I would not be surprised if some cultures still use it, or an equivalent.

Edited by Starhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My notes from Ephesus Museum Turkey 1967

Notes from the 60s?

Well, it's not as if we are making discoveries every day about the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this gets heated: it seems that the ancient Egyptians themselves were not so certain about the size of a cubit, evidence is the different rod lengths found in the same dig:

SuperStock_1895-14625.jpg

Here another set with at least 1 cm difference:

122210248-egyptian-civilization-new-kingdom-dynasty-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=oToYvXs3XPbg5%2bsLNpXWIXUqX%2b2rP1sMrNZPJJuFlaB0gGKJxRONA0%2ftyPh9D6dCzA6TR5a8LHrlTqGJaL5eFw%3d%3d

and here the principle:

83198bd8aac6fafd316b7facec7cc152.jpg

Which shows us that the cubit size very much depended on the person you took the measurement on.

We should not try to make a science out what certainly was not in their time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the "cubit" was based on some local's measurement (such as the chief architect of the project.)

We should not try to make a science out what certainly was not in their time.

Spot on!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My notes from Ephesus Museum Turkey 1967

I think it's actually 21.65 inches. That would be the height of a regular triangle whose sides are one Sacred Cubit of 25 inches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.