Talk:Measuring rod

Outside of Egypt heading

The heading I put in there is a bit lame I think. I could not come up with a good title for that subsection. I hope one of the other editors has a good idea :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Just changed it to Other regions. Hope someone can come up with something better. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Akhenaten image

Akhenaten - or any pharaoh for that matter - is shown with a crook and flail. This had nothing to do with measuring rods or lines. The crook is an adaptation of a (shepard's) staff or walking stick and the flail is related to a fly whisk. See for instance The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt By Toby A. H. Wilkinson pg 30 [1] These symbols have their origins in animal husbandry, not any kind of measurement. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see all these sources showing links between sceptres, rods, hooks and flails and stop deleting things. Also please use eyes to observe no flaily or hooky parts in the image.

- source from the sceptre page

Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no "hooky things" because the statue is damaged. An outdated (1838), religious and fringe authors do not make for a compelling argument. This is violating WP:FRINGE and includes WP:OR as there is no respectable book that would ever claim that Akhenaten is holding a rod and a line.--AnnekeBart (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at these references. [1] is 100 years old and [2] and [5] are over 150 years old: these are unlikely to be reliable on this subject. [4] asserts that the sceptre of Seshat, not the royal sceptre, is a measuring rod, and this is not disputed. [3] is inaccessible to me but appears to be an article about a word which can mean both rod and sceptre. Nothing of these support the assertion that the royal crook and flail are in fact measuring rods. As to what my eyes show me, it is that the statue in question is badly damaged, so it's not surprising that the "flaily and hooky" parts are missing. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There are tonnes of reliable sources showing the development of different symbols such as hook, flail, sceptre, etc. from the original measuring rods and lines. When I can edit this section again, I suggest a history section that should show this development to make it clear. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the actual photograph from the Louvre - where the statue in the picture we were discussing is now - the bottom end of the flail is clearly visible. [2] The whole statue looked more like this: [3] --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, home from work now and time to discuss the heka and nekhekh properly. nekhekh is a magic flail as shown in the complete statue. heka is variously a magic wand, rod, sceptre or crook. Whether it's best wikipedia lists these things as magic or not is up to you. I'm voting not-magic, so it's time to unleash all the sources showing how hooks, flails and sceptres were, and apparently still are mistaken for measuring rods. Then I'm going to bed, to let you all enjoy discussing it.

Gudea of Lagash with surveyors tools

- shows how sceptres were mistaken for rods

- shows how flails were used as measuring rods - in Welsh, but "Flail Yard" should be clear enough for people to understand.

- shows ancient Hebrew flail and measuring rod meaning the same thing.

- shows flail and measuring rod are the same word in Latin too.

- Shows Ptah statue with measuring rod

- Flinders Petrie discussing the flail as a measuring cord running from an engraved rod.

- Recovered from Pithom - Images of supervisors in Egypt, building things with bricks (not farming) - one with flail, another with rod.

- Direct suggestion that statues in egyptian art carry rods, sometimes depicted with knobs, flowers or hooks at the top.

- Measuring cords representing justice in Ra iconography.

- Ivory Rod of King Zet

- Wedge shaped measuring rods and tape in Egyptian iconography.

- Stele of Shemai with rod and sceptre

- Statue of Sarapis with measuring rod

- and coins with a measuring vessel! on Sarapis head!

- Modern source for the above coins and measuring rod dilemna

- source for sceptres being mistaken for measuring rods in Egypt

- Hyroglyphic dictionary showing sceptres, measuring rods, corn measures (flails?) all being the same thing

- Bible dictionary defining shepherds crooks and measuring rods and sceptres are the same thing

If that's not enough, you can even have that book that modern archaeologists seem to hate - (Matthew 27:29) where the Roman soldiers put a measuring rod in the Messiah's hand and mocked him pretending it was a sceptre. I am getting that feeling how he must have despaired... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Half of these (9 to be exact) are seriously outdated references that are more than 100 years old. Budge (nr 10) is rather well known for being unreliable. Several of these have no bearing on the identification of the Egyptian crook and flail as they are referring to Syrian seals (nr7) or other cultures (nr 1). The linguistic argument from nr 5 is completely meaningless. Those kind of arguments are utterly unacceptable as a tool in linguistics. Nr 6 is a misrepresentation at best. The text refers to a statue where the pedestal could represent a measuring rod according to some (but not the only interpretation). Then again, this has nothing to do with the crook and flail. So this long list is nothing but a waste of time and does not support in any way shape or form the idea that Akhenaten is holding a measuring rod and a line. And hence the original argument against including the image stands.

On the other hand there are irrefutable resources which state that the crook and flail are actually a reference to the very early days of animal husbandry. The flail serves as a symbol of authority and the crook (heqa scepter) dates to predynastic times and is the symbol of power.

* Toby A. H. Wilkinson, Early dynastic Egypt, Psychology Press, 1999, pg 160-161 Google Books

* Mey Zaki, Farid Atiya, Legacy of Tutankhamun: art and history, American Univ in Cairo Press, 2008, pg 120, Google Books

* Claude Traunecker, The gods of Egypt, Cornell University Press, 2001, pg 52, Google Books (Mentions that this is a generally agreed upon idea.)

The Akhenaten Colossi from Karnak (of which this is an example) have been written up in detail. and one can check that the king is depicted with a crook and flail (not a rod and line) in for instance

* The Akhenaten Colossi of Karnak By Lisa Manniche, American Univ in Cairo Press, 2010 pg 122, 130 Google Books

These modern and reliable sources should make this case clear. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your modern sources talk about a "gross distortion" in the art of this period and say nothing I can see about symbols of power and animal husbandry in pre-dynastic Egypt. Indeed, animal husbandry developed in the PPNA to PPNB thousands of years before pre-dynastic Egypt and the only farming implement I am aware of associated with anyone of power was Enlil's association with the invention of the basalt hoe, likely due the neolithic revolution. Indeed, all the pre-Akhenaten iconography shown in all those sources (and the Shamash tablet and code of Hammarubi) demonstrate the rich history of this iconography in and outside Egypt. What seems clear is a change at some point from measuring devices to magical, symbolic corruptions in Egypt, where measuring devices retain prominence in Babylon into the 9th, possibly the 7th century BC. I concede however, there are better images and topics to show this than the Akhenaten image, which has been corrupted by magic at this point. Good discussion! We should go make Heka and Nekhekh pages as a result ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilkinson is pretty clear on the symbolism and meaning of the crook and flail. And it's exactly what I pointed out above. And his analysis (seconded by the other sources) states clearly what the interpretations are and furthermore this would be how the crook and flail (as referenced by Manniche) in Akhenaten's hands would be interpreted. I see no credible evidence that the measuring devices ever held any real importance as a royal symbol of power in predynastic Egypt, or dynastic Egypt for that matter. The only ritual use of measuring devices I have ever seen in the (reliable) literature is the stretching of the cord ceremony used in establishing the foundation of the temples. This is recorded in reliefs dating back to the old kingdom. The measurements here were conducted with a cord (hence the name of the ceremony), and I figure there may have been measuring rods involved as well. Images often show the king and the goddess Seshat using rope to mark the boundaries of the structure. I cannot off the top of my head if they may also be holding a measuring stick in their hand or not. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Phi and golden ratio

This is complete fringe nonsense. The Egyptians measured ratios in terms of Egyptian fractions. Phi is defined as either a root of a mathematical equation or more likely the limit of ratios. The latter clearly does not work in Egyptian mathematics. Egyptian fractions are not unique and do not lend themselves to the development of phi. There is no evidence they knew how to extract (irrational) roots from quadratic equations such as $x^{2}-x-1=0$.--AnnekeBart (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read Christie Kielland's discussion about this before mindlessly deleting again. Also, how you can argue with the pure maths showing the relationship between British and Egyptian rods amazes me when you seem to know something about it. I'm sure Egyptians could put 2 squares together and draw a diagonal, even if that is beyond you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read more scientific books such as Architecture and mathematics in ancient Egypt By Corinna Rossi and other respected Egyptological sources before you jump the gun here. People will always try to put these mathematical constants into their interpretations. This says more about them than the culture they are looking at. As a mathematician it is fairly easy to see that these arguments are riddles with mistakes, misdirections and misunderstandings. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please draw a square with a side of 370mm and then draw another one and measure the diagonal. Then I would be grateful if you could restore the ancient British unit of measurement and the well documented details of how it was used as the length of our rods. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you must know that would be original research. We need reliable sources discussing ancient British measuring rods and I haven't seen any. And this is really not the place to rehash the megalithic yard. If there are real ancient British measuring rods, they belong here. Hypothetical ones do not. Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I've chucked a Heggie or someone reliable in there to rephrase for you and will find more. I'd like you to explain exactly why Ivemy (or pure mathematical measurement more importantly) is fringe before deleting good faith content without discussing, which is simply very rude. I'm pleased to overlook this as ever and explain further this established fact (for over 30 years now!) You may well ask why the Royal Cubit is the square of the Remen and how they computed that. They probably didn't - this wasn't in the field of mathematics that it was used, it was in the field of surveying and construciton, and also in art as Kielland explains. Angles like the 5 diagonal would have been used in this was and indeed Kielland (the source you deleted) found the factor that most commonly controlled the compositions of art in ancient Egypt was a geometrical construction for the derivation of phi, of which the framework was a 2 units by 1 unit rectangle. Ivimy (another source deleted) recognised that this construction was used more widely than just in Egypt and discovered a geometrical relationship between the archaic measurement quanta of the Remen, Royal Cubit and Megalithic Yard; a relationship which on his arithmetical calculations was accurate to 0.026% - this has been further documented and reviewed so how it can be labelled fringe, Doug only knows. Perhaps he wants to keep it secret. Anyhow, back on topic. The Remen given by Ivemy is 370mm but this varies between Mhenjo-daro in Pakistan at 0.3704mm, which is the same as the early Egyptian Mastabas and Pyramids. Within this span of four tenths of a millimetre, (or approximately one sixtieth of an inch), numerous other world-wide measurement quanta based on these three measurements have been determined from Broadbent S.R., Quantum hypothesis, Biometrika, 42, 45-57 (1955). To name a few quanta of mensuration in order of age, Catal Huyuk, Eridu, Uruk, Mohenjo-Daro were all based on a half remen measurement. Baalbek podium and trilithon, Nippur, Early Egyptian Mastabas and Pyramids, Ebla, the Dur Untash Ziggurat, Persepolis, Pompeii were all built to a Royal Cubit measurement. British stone circles, the Wandlebury Enigma (Cam Valley Loxodrome), and certain Mayan monuments were built to a Megalithic Yard measurement with Chuitinamit, San Jose - Belize, Mayapan - Yucatan were all built to half Megalithic Yards with Mayan Ball Courts built to a one quarter Megalithic Yard quantum. The average Remen in these cases works out at 0.3701 metres and the Remen derived from these geographically widely-dispersed, groups of archaeologically-defined sites - covering a time-span of more than five thousand years - is computed at 0.37014 to 0.3705 - a variation from the mean of only three quarters of a tenth of one millimetre. This represents an 'error' of less than 1 part in 10,000 - a level of error which would be found acceptable in modern Tertiary traversing by the Ordinance Survey of Great Britain.

The validity of the Remen Mensuration Rectangle as a statement of a geometrical relationship between the remen, the royal cubit and the megalithic yard, is established by these minute variations between the theoretical and the host of practically-measured lengths. By inference, the measuring rods usied in the building of these ancient sites were as universally accurate as the steel tapes used by the Ordinance Survey of Great Britain today.

Ivimy drew attention to the use of phi by the architect (Ictinus) of the Parthenon in determining it's proportions, and to the fact that:

In geometry, phi appears in pentagonal forms of symmetry, notably in the five pointed star which was the emblem of the Pythagorean brotherhoods. In biology, there are many plants, molluscs and other living orangisms that manifest an extraordinary predeliction either for numbers of the Fibonacci series, or for pentagonal arrangements of petals and other parts, or for logarithmic spirals (notably in seashells) which expand in the ratio Phi:1 with every quarter or half turn. No written records have been found on papyri or in inscriptions in tombs and elsewhere to prove that the Egyptians knew anything about phi-ratio, but there is strong circumstantial evidence in their art and architecture that they knew how to construct it from a 2x1 rectangle and how to derive it arithmetically from numbers in the Fibonacci series.

Hence, you can determine that phi is a numerical attribute that is part of the basic structure of the Remen Rectangle. Pictured here [[4]] the arc DH is drawn from centre D with a radius of one remen, cutting AC at H; the arc HG is drawn from centre D with a radius of one remen, cutting AC at H; the arc HG is drawn from centre H with a radius of HF (5 - 1 remens) to cut DF at G. If GF=HF measures 0.827540 metres (Megalithic Yard) minus 0.370087 (Remen) and, therefore equals 0.457453 metres; GD is 2 remens long, less GF, and has a measurement of 0.282721 metres. The ratio of GF over GD, therefore is 1.618037. The figure for Phi given being 1.618034. The difference between these two calculations, the one based on practical numerology, and the other on extensive field measurements, is only 0.000003, or 1 part in 500,000. The common factor of 5 in the phi-ratio and in the remen/megalithic yard relationship, of course, controls this association, but serves to establish the connection between phi and ancient mensuration. What is likely in some structures such as Knossos in Athens is that there were two sets of 'Remen Rods'; the one standard at 0.3701 metres and the other phi-modified at 0.3701 x 1.618033, giving a quantum of 0.5988 metres (a quarter of which was the Knossos construction quantum of 0.1497 metres). Then by using one rod for, say, the north-south direction and the other for directions at right angles, the non-mathematically trained craftsman, automatically could produce buildings based on phi-ratio proportions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some major problems I see at this point include (in no particular order):

1) Klielland's book is not considered reliable. See for instance the review by Nora Scott in Artibus Asiae, Vol. 18, No. 3/4 (1955), pp. 341-342. JSTOR. To quote: "The present reviewer, following Miss Kielland's argument with ruler and compasses (and not always arriving at exactly the same point), has yet to be convinced that any coincidences of measurement which do occur are not purely fortuitous."

In another review TGH James comments that "There are many reasons however which lead one to doubt the validity of her work". T. G. H. James, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3 (1958), pp. 624-625 JSTOR

2) Surveying and constructions (anything on a larger scale) was not done using cubit rods. They used knotted ropes as sown for instance in the tomb of Menna. (Not the biggest problem in everything I'm reading here).

3) There is no evidence of phi being used in Ancient Egypt. There is no circumstantial evidence either. This is carefully explained in Corinna Rossi's text. As Kate Spence points out in her review of Rossi's work: "She shows, firstly, that there is no evidence for the use of approximations of phi (the Golden Section) or pi and, secondly, that such concepts are difficult to reconcile with known mathematical working methods in Egypt". See Review in Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 261-262 JSTOR or the original book: Corinna Rossi, Architecture and mathematics in ancient Egypt, Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Books

4) Ivimy? This 1974 text is written by a civil servant claiming all civilization started in the 5 millenium BC in the Euphrates valley, headed by a demi-god. Members of this "dynastic race" then colonized Egypt and later moved to England to build Stonehenge. This book is so over the top and unbelievable that it is in no way a reliable source (WP:RD). In a review on JSTOR it is likened to von Daniken. (In review by Paula L. Lutz, Man New Series, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), p. 339, Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Article Stable URL: [5])

In short, Klielland and Ivimy are not reliable source and more recent scholarship (2004) has shown that the whole phi and pi "sightings" are in the eye of the beholder, not anything put there by any Ancient Egyptian. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, 0.37 x √2 = 0.523, 0.37 x √5 = 0.827 Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

merge proposal

I don't think this article stands on its own, but ought to be incorporated as a section on ruler. there's no real difference - a ruler is just a standardized, gradated measuring rod. comments? I'll add the merge tags now.--Ludwigs2 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rulers are modern. Measuring rods are ancient. The difference is temporal and hence deserves it's own page. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

errr... that strikes me as the very definition of a history section - i.e. measuring rods are ancient rulers. can you tell me any reason why measuring rods should be considered as a concept different enough from rulers to merit its own article? --Ludwigs2 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

They are round, not flat? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a merge may be better. This belongs in the history section of a page about rulers.--AnnekeBart (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

They were also used for surveying with a line as shown in the nice new image someone added, whereas rulers are not surveying devices, hence the purpose is different along with shape. I'd have thought tape measure has it's own page for similar reasons. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul, the concept of a ruler and a measuring rod (and several other things, for that matter) is the same - they are all tools used to measure out lengths systematically, on varying scales and with varying degrees of accuracy. tape measure should also be merged in this way: it's usually preferable (from the reader's perspective) to have one article covering various aspects of a topic than to have umpteen separate articles for each. So again: yes, they have different shapes, yes they cover different scales, but is there some reason they need to be separated off? I mean, there are good reasons for this sometimes - biplane has a separate article from airplane because it's such a rich topic in its own right - but I'm not seeing that same kind of richness here. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

THanks Ludwigs2, I was pretty sure this article was in some way redundant. I agree entirely that this should be a section in ruler. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

* the main discussion for this merger is at Talk:Ruler#Merge_discussion, and we should probably continue this over there to keep things together (thanks for pointing that out, Doug). --Ludwigs2 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not seeing rich content that would make this topic similar to your biplane example because rods and measurements of rods such as the British one keep getting deleted. There's also a wealth of iconography that I do need to expand in this section so people stop thinking Pharaohs were flail-using farmers. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether "Pharaohs were flail-using farmers" or not would belong in an article with a title like Pharaonic iconography: it would be a clear coatrack here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion for a new page. I like it! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging this with ruler makes for a long and unwieldly article. The rods have their own distinct use and history. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Great re-work Petter. And a good voice of reason here too. Nice to see the inclusion of the Roman Foot at 0.296, which Anne Macaulay misinterpreted from the Greek Metrological Relief. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Remen and Royal Cubit

First, why do we care about the relationship? If Egyptian measuring rods had Royal Cubit marks, we can say that if we can reliably source it. But this is not an article about measurements. I also find that the book in the first link, when searched for Remen [6] returns 'no results found for remen', and when searched for royal cubit, 'no results found for royal cubit'. And this source [7] gives a cubit as 7/5 of a Remen if we really need to include it. But this article is about measuring rods, so I see no place in it for 'remen cubits' if indeed they belong anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The putative relationship between the remen and the royal cubit, addressed in the second book, seems rather a long way from the history and iconography of the measuring rod. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

measuring rods based on the Megalithic Yard - what does Ruggles actually say?

I'd like quotes from Ruggles - anything he says about the megalithic yard, please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article in New Scientist where he gives the megalithic yard a "tentative yes". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In October 1976. Paul, what in the world are you doing? You can't use a 1976 reference when he clearly has revised his opinions since. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Claims sourced to Pointing and Scott

I don't know why Paul Bedson isn't willing to agree that p.147 in the book Ruggles edited wasn't written by Alexander Thom and Archie Thom and not by anyone else, as if you look at the page before using Google books [8] it's clear they wrote that chapter. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 147 is written by the Thoms, but Pages 432-441 are written by Ponting and Ponting who discuss the Dalmore Bone analysed by P.J. Scott. I have added the correct pages to the citation now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I was just looking at the reference page. But it's worse now, still says p.147, shows Ruggles as author and not editor, and I have no idea what the Bible is doing there as a reference for two statements. You have re-added material not discussing measuring rods and you've used by sources that I will be taking to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cubit vs remen vs megalithic yard

I've removed the paragraph on the relationship between these units of measure. Firstly, John Michell (writer) is not a mainstream academic. Secondly the relation is arguably fringe. Thirdly, and most importantly for this article, it's a WP:COATRACK. This article is about measuring rods, not about the putative relationship between units of measure. That can be dealt with, if at all, elsewhere. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made this point before. Meanwhile I'll add that the discussion on merging this article with Ruler ad Talk:Ruler#Merge discussion has 4 editors in favour of a merge, no one there against, Paul Bedson here says he is against it. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Measuring rod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016012340/http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictL.html to http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictL.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)