![]() | A fact from Measuring rod appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 - 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)
[1] - source from the sceptre page
[5] Paul Bedson ❉ talk❉ 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
[1] Gudea of Lagash with surveyors tools
[2] - shows how sceptres were mistaken for rods
[3] - shows how flails were used as measuring rods - in Welsh, but "Flail Yard" should be clear enough for people to understand.
[4] - shows ancient Hebrew flail and measuring rod meaning the same thing.
[5] - shows flail and measuring rod are the same word in Latin too.
[6] - Shows Ptah statue with measuring rod
[7] - Flinders Petrie discussing the flail as a measuring cord running from an engraved rod.
[8] - Recovered from Pithom - Images of supervisors in Egypt, building things with bricks (not farming) - one with flail, another with rod.
[9] - Direct suggestion that statues in egyptian art carry rods, sometimes depicted with knobs, flowers or hooks at the top.
[10] - Measuring cords representing justice in Ra iconography.
[7] - Ivory Rod of King Zet
[11] - Wedge shaped measuring rods and tape in Egyptian iconography.
[12] - Stele of Shemai with rod and sceptre
[13] [14] - Statue of Sarapis with measuring rod
[15] - and coins with a measuring vessel! on Sarapis head!
[16] - Modern source for the above coins and measuring rod dilemna
[17] - source for sceptres being mistaken for measuring rods in Egypt
[10] - Hyroglyphic dictionary showing sceptres, measuring rods, corn measures (flails?) all being the same thing
[18] - 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)
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 .-- AnnekeBart ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'd like quotes from Ruggles - anything he says about the megalithic yard, please. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Measuring rod appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 - 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)
[1] - source from the sceptre page
[5] Paul Bedson ❉ talk❉ 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
[1] Gudea of Lagash with surveyors tools
[2] - shows how sceptres were mistaken for rods
[3] - shows how flails were used as measuring rods - in Welsh, but "Flail Yard" should be clear enough for people to understand.
[4] - shows ancient Hebrew flail and measuring rod meaning the same thing.
[5] - shows flail and measuring rod are the same word in Latin too.
[6] - Shows Ptah statue with measuring rod
[7] - Flinders Petrie discussing the flail as a measuring cord running from an engraved rod.
[8] - Recovered from Pithom - Images of supervisors in Egypt, building things with bricks (not farming) - one with flail, another with rod.
[9] - Direct suggestion that statues in egyptian art carry rods, sometimes depicted with knobs, flowers or hooks at the top.
[10] - Measuring cords representing justice in Ra iconography.
[7] - Ivory Rod of King Zet
[11] - Wedge shaped measuring rods and tape in Egyptian iconography.
[12] - Stele of Shemai with rod and sceptre
[13] [14] - Statue of Sarapis with measuring rod
[15] - and coins with a measuring vessel! on Sarapis head!
[16] - Modern source for the above coins and measuring rod dilemna
[17] - source for sceptres being mistaken for measuring rods in Egypt
[10] - Hyroglyphic dictionary showing sceptres, measuring rods, corn measures (flails?) all being the same thing
[18] - 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)
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 .-- AnnekeBart ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'd like quotes from Ruggles - anything he says about the megalithic yard, please. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)