DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8#0073
( 72 )
Pliny who calculated the dimensions upon the ad»
ventitious surface, at a time when the sands must have
been deeper than now, for reasons before assigned, re-
cords the line, which is the perpendicular of the trigon
or side, at 908 pyramidic feet (whereof 2| are the cubit,)
or as he states the measure 883 to the flat at top, and 25
more of this acclining line, to reach an apex : and as the
base, to which this line is found to be equal, is 1000
such feet, of course the depth of sand, admitting his
dimensions to be accurate, must have been, according
to the vertical altitude now discovered, 31.8 cubits= 58
English feet.
PJiny also informs us, that the largest Pyramid oc-
cupied eight acres of surface. And it will be presently
proved, that this assertion is perfectly correct; it is,
however, rather surprizing, whence he inferred it. For
it appears by a comparison of dimensions above stated,
and his own S08 pyramidic feet equal 662 of ours, that
the square of these by no means contains eight Egyptian
acres, as will presently be seen : he probably founded
his assertion on some very ancient annals in some of
the old authors he frequently quotes : and that author
again must have received it as a very remote tradition.
My reasons for this conclusion will appear in the sequel.
It is asserted in (I believe) Doctor Arbuthnot's tables,
that the learned are not all of the same opinion, as to
the quantity of area, which the Greeks called, pie thron :
and in reality, it seems a thing impossible tobe defined,
as«n abstract precise quaatity, any more, than the ar-
.pent, in some of the French provinces; or our acre,
which varies in different counties ; because the acre is
comprized çf a settled number of perches, but the perch
of one county is not always the same as in another.
And
Pliny who calculated the dimensions upon the ad»
ventitious surface, at a time when the sands must have
been deeper than now, for reasons before assigned, re-
cords the line, which is the perpendicular of the trigon
or side, at 908 pyramidic feet (whereof 2| are the cubit,)
or as he states the measure 883 to the flat at top, and 25
more of this acclining line, to reach an apex : and as the
base, to which this line is found to be equal, is 1000
such feet, of course the depth of sand, admitting his
dimensions to be accurate, must have been, according
to the vertical altitude now discovered, 31.8 cubits= 58
English feet.
PJiny also informs us, that the largest Pyramid oc-
cupied eight acres of surface. And it will be presently
proved, that this assertion is perfectly correct; it is,
however, rather surprizing, whence he inferred it. For
it appears by a comparison of dimensions above stated,
and his own S08 pyramidic feet equal 662 of ours, that
the square of these by no means contains eight Egyptian
acres, as will presently be seen : he probably founded
his assertion on some very ancient annals in some of
the old authors he frequently quotes : and that author
again must have received it as a very remote tradition.
My reasons for this conclusion will appear in the sequel.
It is asserted in (I believe) Doctor Arbuthnot's tables,
that the learned are not all of the same opinion, as to
the quantity of area, which the Greeks called, pie thron :
and in reality, it seems a thing impossible tobe defined,
as«n abstract precise quaatity, any more, than the ar-
.pent, in some of the French provinces; or our acre,
which varies in different counties ; because the acre is
comprized çf a settled number of perches, but the perch
of one county is not always the same as in another.
And