waggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be careful of using 22/7 and sphere as an
> explanation for the design of the sarcophagus.
> This sarcophagus is by no means a fine piece of
> work, as Petrie points out it is not finely
> wrought and couldn't rival Khafre's. It would be
> nice to see a study done on the exceptional
> sarcophagi at Lahun.

> Looking at Smyths tables we can have a difference
> in external lengths of up to 1.5 inches, and
> width 0.7. Likewise internal lengths diff by 0.56
> and breadth 0.71.
> Height internal and external are good tolerances
> as we should expect, as care has to be taken in
> this area for the sliding lid.
> Only the east side of the sarcophagus has a good
> plane under 0.02, with the other sides quite
> concave from 0.3 to 0.5 inches.
> In my early days of engineering when creating a
> similar shape (thankfully smaller) out of metal,
> we always created a master side first, this was
> made as flat as possible, with all subsequent
> measures referenced to this side. This basic
> engineering principle was probably used by the
> creators of khufu's box, which is why the east
> side is so flat, compared to the other's.
> You seem to suggest that the concave sides were
> done diliberately; which l doubt. Petrie even
> describes the errors , for example "the saw was
> run too deep into the granite, and was backed out
> again by the masons; but this fresh start they
> made was still too deep, and two inches lower they
> backed out a second time, having altogether cut
> out more than 1/10 inch deeper than they
> intended."
>
> In short the box is poor quality and so it is not
> really possible to ascribe any definitive solution
> to what was intended.
> It could be as simple as internal volume being
> created to reflect half the volume of the solid
> box, with the sides, bottom, lid having simple
> fractional relationships to the box. The lid
> could be 1/7th, the bottom, 1/6th of solid box (or
> 1/3rd of hollowed out box, leaving the walls and
> ends as 2/3rds). The volume of the solid box may
> have been intended to be 500 hekat or 5000 hin,
> with the removed material being 250 hekat. The
> above scheme might be possible, but the
> variability of dimensions presented by the box
> means that it can only be a theory, nothing can be
> proved; short of finding a papyrus with the
> designers blue prints.


Great information Waggy just a point of clarification the above is about Khufu sac. and not the one at Lahun? Do you have the link to Smyths' table. Thanks