DOCSLIB.ORG

Ancient Egyptian Cubits – Origin and Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ancient Egyptian Cubits – Origin and Evolution Ancient Egyptian Cubits – Origin and Evolution by Antoine Pierre Hirsch A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto © Copyright by Antoine Pierre Hirsch 2013 i Ancient Egyptian Cubits – Origin and Evolution Antoine Pierre Hirsch Doctor of Philosophy Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2013 Abstract This thesis suggests that prior to Ptolemaic and Roman times, ancient Egypt had two distinct and parallel linear systems: the royal system limited to official architectural projects and land measurements, and a great (aA) system used for everyday measurements. A key 1/3 ratio explains ancient Egyptian linear measurements and their agricultural origin. Emmer is 1/3 lighter than barley, consequently, for an equal weight, a container filled with emmer will be 1/3 greater than a container filled with barley. The lengths derived from both containers share the same 1/3 ratio. The second chapter, Previous Studies, lists the work of scholars involved directly or indirectly with ancient Egyptian metrology. The third chapter, The Royal Cubit as a Converter and the Scribe’s Palette as a Measuring Device, capitalizes on the colour scheme (black and white on the reproduction of Appendix A) appearing on the Amenemope cubit artifact to show the presence of two cubits and two systems: the black (royal system) and the white (great [aA] system) materialized by the scribe's palette of 30, 40, and 50 cm. The royal cubit artifacts provide a conversion bridge between the royal and the great systems. The information derived from the visual clues on the Amenemope cubit artifact are tested against a database of artifacts scattered in museums around the world. The fourth chapter, The Origin and Evolution of Ancient Egyptian Cubits, historically relates the ancient Egyptian linear systems to the closed metrological systems ii they belong to. A closed metrological system is a system in which units of length, volume, and weight are related to each other. The conclusion is that the ancient Egyptian metrological system is backward compatible as it is possible - using a hin as a closing volumetric unit and emmer, barley, wheat (triticum durum) and water as commodities - to re-construct the linear metrological systems of all ancient Egyptian periods. iii Table of Contents List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... x List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... xii List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. xv Chapter 1 ‐ Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 ‐ Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................... 9 1 Ancient Egyptian Cubits ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Cubits ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1 Herodotus .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.2 E. F. Jomard .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.3 J. J. Champollion‐Figeac ....................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.4 P. S. Girard ........................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.5 R. W. Howard‐Vyse and J. S. Perring .................................................................................................... 12 1.1.6 Ch. P. Smyth ......................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1.7 R. Lepsius ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.1.8 W. F. Petrie .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.9 F. L. Griffith .......................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1.10 L. Borchardt ..................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1.11 W. F. Reineke .................................................................................................................................. 15 1.1.12 A. Schlott ......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.1.13 E. Iversen ......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.1.14 G. Robins ......................................................................................................................................... 19 1.1.15 J.F. Carlotti ...................................................................................................................................... 19 1.1.16 T. Pommerening .............................................................................................................................. 20 1.1.17 G. Schmitt ....................................................................................................................................... 22 1.1.18 J. Wegner ........................................................................................................................................ 22 1.1.19 P. Zignani ......................................................................................................................................... 22 1.2 Nbj ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 1.2.1 W. C. Hayes .......................................................................................................................................... 23 iv 1.2.2 N. Victor ............................................................................................................................................... 23 1.2.3 E. Roik .................................................................................................................................................. 23 1.2.4 J. Legon ................................................................................................................................................ 24 1.2.5 C. Simon‐Boidot ................................................................................................................................... 25 2 Comparative Studies ............................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Cubits ............................................................................................................................................................. 25 2.1.1 I. Newton ............................................................................................................................................. 25 2.1.2 Authors Quoted By Lepsius In Die Alt‐Aegytische Elle Und Ihre Eintheilung (1865) ........................... 25 2.1.3 R. Lepsius ............................................................................................................................................. 26 2.1.4 A. Segrè ................................................................................................................................................ 26 2.1.5 J. A. Decourdemanche ......................................................................................................................... 26 2.1.6 E. Lorenzen .......................................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.7 W. Hinz ................................................................................................................................................. 28 2.2 Nbj ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 2.2.1 A. Segrè ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 3 ‐ The Royal Cubit as a Converter and The Scribe’s Palette as a Measuring Device ............................... 30 3 The Amenemope Royal Cubit Artifact as A Converter ............................................................................... 34 3.1 Division Markers ...........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Preliminary Study of the Inner Coffin and Mummy Cover Of
    A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE INNER COFFIN AND MUMMY COVER OF NESYTANEBETTAWY FROM BAB EL-GUSUS (A.9) IN THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. by Alec J. Noah A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Major: Art History The University of Memphis May 2013 Copyright © 2013 Alec Noah All rights reserved ii For my parents iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I must thank the National Museum of Natural History, particularly the assistant collection managers, David Hunt and David Rosenthal. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Nigel Strudwick, for his guidance, suggestions, and willingness to help at every step of this project, and my thesis committee, Dr. Lorelei H. Corcoran and Dr. Patricia V. Podzorski, for their detailed comments which improved the final draft of this thesis. I would like to thank Grace Lahneman for introducing me to the coffin of Nesytanebettawy and for her support throughout this entire process. I am also grateful for the Lahneman family for graciously hosting me in Maryland on multiple occasions while I examined the coffin. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents. Without their support, none of this would have been possible. iv ABSTRACT Noah, Alec. M.A. The University of Memphis. May 2013. A Preliminary Study of the Inner Coffin and Mummy Cover of Nesytanebettawy from Bab el-Gusus (A.9) in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Major Professor: Nigel Strudwick, Ph.D. The coffin of Nesytanebettawy (A.9) was retrieved from the second Deir el Bahari cache in the Bab el-Gusus tomb and was presented to the National Museum of Natural History in 1893.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Ancient Egypt “Passionate, Erudite, Living Legend Lecturers
    “Pure intellectual stimulation that can be popped into Topic Subtopic the [audio or video player] anytime.” History Ancient History —Harvard Magazine The History of Ancient Egypt “Passionate, erudite, living legend lecturers. Academia’s best lecturers are being captured on tape.” —The Los Angeles Times The History “A serious force in American education.” —The Wall Street Journal of Ancient Egypt Course Guidebook Professor Bob Brier Long Island University Professor Bob Brier is an Egyptologist and Professor of Philosophy at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University. He is renowned for his insights into ancient Egypt. He hosts The Learning Channel’s popular Great Egyptians series, and his research was the subject of the National Geographic television special Mr. Mummy. A dynamic instructor, Professor Brier has received Long Island University’s David Newton Award for Teaching Excellence. THE GREAT COURSES® Corporate Headquarters 4840 Westfields Boulevard, Suite 500 Chantilly, VA 20151-2299 Guidebook USA Phone: 1-800-832-2412 www.thegreatcourses.com Cover Image: © Hemera/Thinkstock. Course No. 350 © 1999 The Teaching Company. PB350A PUBLISHED BY: THE GREAT COURSES Corporate Headquarters 4840 Westfi elds Boulevard, Suite 500 Chantilly, Virginia 20151-2299 Phone: 1-800-TEACH-12 Fax: 703-378-3819 www.thegreatcourses.com Copyright © The Teaching Company, 1999 Printed in the United States of America This book is in copyright. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of The Teaching Company.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beautiful Cubit System I Douglas 2019 the Beautiful Cubit System
    The Beautiful Cubit System I Douglas 2019 The Beautiful Cubit System Ian Douglas, B.Sc [email protected] 30 June 2019 Version 1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3263864 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Abstract An analysis of the Egyptian Royal cubit, presenting some research and opinions flowing from that research, into what I believe was the original cubit, and how it was corrupted. I show various close arithmetic approximations and multiple ways of getting the divisions of the cubit, as well as some related measures. The cubit also encapsulates the basic components for the metric system. Keywords: Egyptology, metrology, royal cubit, cubit, metre, foot, metric system Contents 1. Introduction 2. Overview of current understanding 3. An alternative origin 4. Different ways of approximating the royal cubit 5. Different ways of getting the cubit divisions 6. Geometry, the Royal Cubit and the metric system 7. Bibliography 1. Introduction The cubit is a well-know ancient measure of length, used around various places in the Middle East and Mediterranean region in the distant past. 1 The Beautiful Cubit System I Douglas 2019 It is allegedly based on the length of a human (male) fore-arm. It is typically measured from the back of the elbow to some point between the wrist and the end of the outstretched middle finger, or in some variants, a point beyond that. The problem with this approach is that everyone’s arm is a different length. If the heights of the dynastic Egyptians is taken as representative, then their arms would have been too short to justify the accepted lengths.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Huggins CAA 1983.Pdf
    103 SAXON BUILDI NG MEASUREMENTS P.J.Hu99 ins 27 Grange Court, Waltham ~bbey, ~ssex. Abstract The medieval ~nglish rod of 5.OJ m has been shown to have been in use back to the 6th c~ntury.The sub-divi'sions so fa.r detected are thirds and sixths of this .rod. '1',10 particular a.spects are considered in this paper. The first is vhether the rod was divided further into feet; it is suggested that the manupes-the foot measured by hand-at 15 to the rod is the likely contender. The second aspect concerns building data from r-Juckine. At least 66 Saxon post-hole buildings have been analysed and, provisionally, it appears that 40 were set out using a rod of about 4.65 m and 25 using the 5.03 m rod. Extant rods in the Saxon bomeland likewise have a mean value of 4.65 m suggesting this measure Has brought over by the original Saxon settlers at Bucking. Introduction In a developing sub'ject new ideas are formula.ted and old ideas rightly questioned and possibly discarded. Ne," data may support established hypotheses or change or add to the picture. At any particular time one or hvo aspects of a developing subject will appear to be of special importance in a \vorker t s mind. Such is the position at the present time. The first as~ect of current interest is whether or not the 5.03 m rod, used in the Saxon period, was divided into feet. The second aspect concerns a site '''here two measuring systems appear to have been in use.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Egyptian Chronology.Pdf
    Ancient Egyptian Chronology HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES SECTION ONE THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST Ancient Near East Editor-in-Chief W. H. van Soldt Editors G. Beckman • C. Leitz • B. A. Levine P. Michalowski • P. Miglus Middle East R. S. O’Fahey • C. H. M. Versteegh VOLUME EIGHTY-THREE Ancient Egyptian Chronology Edited by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and David A. Warburton BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ancient Egyptian chronology / edited by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and David A. Warburton; with the assistance of Marianne Eaton-Krauss. p. cm. — (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East ; v. 83) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-11385-5 ISBN-10: 90-04-11385-1 1. Egypt—History—To 332 B.C.—Chronology. 2. Chronology, Egyptian. 3. Egypt—Antiquities. I. Hornung, Erik. II. Krauss, Rolf. III. Warburton, David. IV. Eaton-Krauss, Marianne. DT83.A6564 2006 932.002'02—dc22 2006049915 ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN-10 90 04 11385 1 ISBN-13 978 90 04 11385 5 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • II. 9 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY of DYN. 21 Karl Jansen-Winkeln At
    II. 9 RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF DYN. 21 Karl Jansen-Winkeln At the beginning of Dyn. 21 Egypt was split in two, with two centres of power, each ruled individually. UE, whose northern frontier was located in the region of Herakleopolis, was governed by a military com- mander who, at the same time was HPA of Thebes.1 In texts and depictions some of these UE regents (Herihor, Pinudjem I and Menkheperre) assume in varying degrees attributes which are reserved for a king. Kings reigned in LE, but at least two of them (Psusennes and Amenemope) occasionally bear the title of “HPA”. Contemporaneous documents of which only a small number survived do not give any direct indication as to the reason for this partition of Egypt.2 The only large group of finds are the graves of the kings in Tanis and the col- lective interments in the Theban necropolis (including replacements and re-interments of older mummies). Among these Theban funeral sites various dated objects can be found, but unfortunately most dates are anonymous and not ascribed to any explicit regent. Of this twofold line of regents, Manetho lists only the kings of LE, namely (1) Smendes, (2) Psusennes [I], (3) Nepherkheres, (4) Amenophthis, (5) Osochor, (6) Psinaches, (7) Psusennes [II]. Contemporary documents contain ample reference of the kings Psusennes (P#-sb#-¢'j-m-nwt; only in LE), Amenemope ( Jmn-m-Jpt) and Siamun (Z#-Jmn) (both in LE and UE). The first two kings can be straightforwardly identified as Manetho’s Psusennes (I) and Amenophthis. A king named Smendes (Ns-b#-nb-ddt) is attested by only a few, undated inscriptions, but the history of Wenamun shows clearly that he was a contemporary of Herihor and thus the first king of Dyn.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Oriental Metrology and the Politics of Antiquity
    1 Oriental Metrology and the Politics of Antiquity in Nineteenth-century Survey Sciences Simon Schaffer University of Cambridge E-mail: [email protected] Argument Metrological techniques to establish shared quantitative measures have often been seen as signs of rational modernisation. The cases considered here show instead the close relation of such techniques with antiquarian and revivalist programmes under imperial regimes. Enterprises in survey sciences in Egypt in the wake of the French invasion of 1798 and in India during the East India Company’s revenue surveys involved the promotion of a new kind of oriental metrology designed to represent colonisers’ measures as restorations of ancient values to be applied to current systems of survey and measurement. Surveyors’ practice and hardware help clarify the significance of the complex historical and political functions of scientific standards. The balance of the paper discusses the survey work of later nineteenth century indigenous Egyptian astronomers at a conjuncture of major economic and political dislocation to explore the various versions of antiquity at stake in these metrological programmes. 2 Introduction: survey sciences and metrology’s invention “Egyptian genius always seems to take pleasure in veiling from the world the principle of its lovely creations, concealing it from profane eyes, perhaps so as better to give them a divine origin, keep them pure and guard them from time’s injuries. Thus one sees in use in Egypt, but without being able to understand the principle, a measurement system apparently crude but in fact the most exact of all known systems”: Mahmud al-Falaki, “The current Egyptian measurement system” (Mahmud 1873, 67) Metrological equipment relies on material measures that somehow embody agreed standards used by a specific community to help make its world knowable in quantitative form.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranke, the Art of Ancient Egypt and Breasted, Geschichte Aegyptens (1936), 41-2; Smith, Hist
    NON-ROYAL STATUES PREDYNASTIC PERIOD Woman with child Ivory. 801-110-000 Woman with child on hip, late Predynastic, in Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum, 14441. Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt 168 fig. 131; Erman and Ranke, Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum Taf. 12 [1]; Schäfer and Andrae, Kunst (1925), 574 Abb. 171 [5]; (1930), 606-7 Abb. 176 [4]; (1942), 626 Abb. 176 [4]; Scharff, Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens ii, 50-1 [79] Taf. 16; Ranke, The Art of Ancient Egypt and Breasted, Geschichte Aegyptens (1936), 41-2; Smith, Hist. Eg. Sculp. 1-2 fig. 4 [left]; Wolf, Kunst Abb. 18; Hornemann, Types v, pl. 1246; Wiesner, J. Ägyptische Kunst 26 Abb. 1; id. in Äg. Mus. (1991), No. 5 [b] fig. on 1; Vilímková, M. Starove9ký Egypt fig. 15; Priese, Das Ägyptische Museum. Wegleitung (1989), 11 Abb. 1; Wenig, Die Frau pl. 4; D. W[ildung] in Phillips, T. (ed.), Africa. The Art of a Continent Cat. 1.2 fig. 801-110-002 Mother with child, late Predynastic, in Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum, 17600. Schäfer and Andrae, Kunst (1925), 574 Abb. 171 [2, 3]; (1930), 606 Abb. 176 [2, 3]; (1942), 626 Abb. 176 [2, 3]; Scharff, Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens ii, 50 [78] Taf. 16; Ranke, The Art of Ancient Egypt and Breasted, Geschichte Aegyptens (1936), 45-6; Hamann, Äg. Kunst 76, 78 Abb. 83; Smith, Hist. Eg. Sculp. 1-2 fig. 4 [middle]; Wolf, Kunst 53 Abb. 17; id. Die Kultur Ägyptens 50 Abb. 48; id. Frühe Hochkulturen. Ägypten, Mesopotamien, Ägäis 22 Abb.
    [Show full text]
  • Converting Waste Oil Palm Trees Into a Resource R O G R a M M E P N V I R O N M E N T E
    w w w . u n ep. o r g United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, 00100 Kenya Tel: (254 20) 7621234 Fax: (254 20) 7623927 E-mail: [email protected] web: www.unep.org CONVERTING WASTE OIL PALM TREES INTO A ESOURCE R ROGRAMME P NVIRONMENT E ATIONS N NITED U Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2012 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educa- tional or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiv- ing a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Na- tions Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundar- ies. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Acknowledgement This document was developed by a team led by Dr. Wan Asma Ibrahim Head of Bioen- ergy Programme, Forest Products Division, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) under the overall guidance and supervision of Surya Prakash Chandak, Senior Pro- gramme Officer, International Environmental Technology Centre, Division of Technol- ogy, Industry & Economics, United Nations Environment Programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who in Ancient Egypt
    Who’s Who IN ANCIENT EGYPT Available from Routledge worldwide: Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in Classical Mythology Michael Grant and John Hazel Who’s Who in World Politics Alan Palmer Who’s Who in Dickens Donald Hawes Who’s Who in Jewish History Joan Comay, new edition revised by Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok Who’s Who in Military History John Keegan and Andrew Wheatcroft Who’s Who in Nazi Germany Robert S.Wistrich Who’s Who in the New Testament Ronald Brownrigg Who’s Who in Non-Classical Mythology Egerton Sykes, new edition revised by Alan Kendall Who’s Who in the Old Testament Joan Comay Who’s Who in Russia since 1900 Martin McCauley Who’s Who in Shakespeare Peter Quennell and Hamish Johnson Who’s Who in World War Two Edited by John Keegan Who’s Who IN ANCIENT EGYPT Michael Rice 0 London and New York First published 1999 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. © 1999 Michael Rice The right of Michael Rice to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • English Customary Weights and Measures
    English Customary Weights and Measures Distance In all traditional measuring systems, short distance units are based on the dimensions of the human body. The inch represents the width of a thumb; in fact, in many languages, the word for "inch" is also the word for "thumb." The foot (12 inches) was originally the length of a human foot, although it has evolved to be longer than most people's feet. The yard (3 feet) seems to have gotten its start in England as the name of a 3-foot measuring stick, but it is also understood to be the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the middle finger of the outstretched hand. Finally, if you stretch your arms out to the sides as far as possible, your total "arm span," from one fingertip to the other, is a fathom (6 feet). Historically, there are many other "natural units" of the same kind, including the digit (the width of a finger, 0.75 inch), the nail (length of the last two joints of the middle finger, 3 digits or 2.25 inches), the palm (width of the palm, 3 inches), the hand (4 inches), the shaftment (width of the hand and outstretched thumb, 2 palms or 6 inches), the span (width of the outstretched hand, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger, 3 palms or 9 inches), and the cubit (length of the forearm, 18 inches). In Anglo-Saxon England (before the Norman conquest of 1066), short distances seem to have been measured in several ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Instruction of Amenemope and Proverbs
    Instruction of amenemope and proverbs Continue Instruction Amen-em-up, the son of kanakht 19th / XXth Dynasty - circa 1292 - 1075 BC a calm and honest man who allows his heart to enter his sanctuary Wim den Dangen Translation Instruction Amen-Em-apt is part of my ancient Egyptian reading (2016), a publication of pod in paperback format of all translations available on maat.sofiatopia.org. These readings cover a period of thirteen centuries, covering all important stages of ancient Egyptian literature. Translated from Egyptian originals, they are ordered in chronological order and were considered by the Egyptians as part of the core of their extensive literature. The study of sources, hieroglyphics, comments and photos located on the text itself remains on the site on a free basis. Amenhotep, son of the Hapu dynasty XVIIIth - Cairo Museum 1. Source : Budget papyrus - BM 10474. 2. Amen-em-apt man and his time. 3. Text Instructions Amen-em-apt. Notes. 5. Comments. 6. Egyptian sacred literature. 7. Egyptian literature of wisdom. 1. Source: Papyrus Budge - BM 10474. The discovery and early exploration of the Instruction of Amenemope or Amenophis, the son of Kanaht, is one of the many magnificent and important treasures that Budge, on his first mission to Egypt, acquired for the (then imperial) British Museum in 1888. The earliest reference to it in print was Lepage Renuf's vague remark shortly afterwards. Back in 1923 (when the papyrus was first presented to the public), whether the official publication in the second series of the famous facsimile Budge of the Egyptian Hieroglyph Papiri in the British Museum, where the text is photographed (tables 1 - 14), is transcribed in hieroglyphs from the original and translated.
    [Show full text]