68

Tables of Ancient Coins ,

viz. amongst: those who were last: served j or a Sedition amongthe people.

This is a plausible argument; however it is not to be imaginedthat after every overflow of the Nile, there was always a mensura-tion, but such a thing might be necessary sometimes.

Thirdly, The Nation who conquer’d Ægypt, could not haveintroduced their measores; for the Babylonian Cubic of 5 Palms ismuch fli or ter, and so is the Roman, and Greeks and the TurkijhPike, which is derived from * s muc h longer than this

Cairo Cubit.

Another presumption arises from the Dimensions of the great-est: Pyramid , which meafur’d by this Cubit falls into round num-bers, as it may be fuppos’d an Ar chit eU would chuse in setting outthe plan of a stately building, rather than such as end in Fractions.* e The sides of the Base of the great Pyramid are delivered, p. 6 8,(C of Mr. Greaves's Pyramidographia , to be 693 Englijh Feet. For

Reduction, these must be divided by 1,8x4, which is his lengthct of the Cairo Cubit in our foot measure, the quote is 379,954,Cf which is so very little short of 3 8 o Cairo Cubits, that I think it" reasonable to believe that the old ArchiteUs design’d just thiscc even number of Ægyptian Cubits. For if we suppose Mr. Greavesic to have missed but c i z of a foot, which is not one Inch and" an half, in taking this long measure of near 700 feet, then the" Side must be put 693,1 z: this number divided 1.8x4, willC( give precisely 380.

<f In like manner I remembred, that Greaves , p. 96, 97, gives" the length of the exterior Surface of the Tomb, contain’d in the" midst of the greatest Pyramid, to be in our foot measure 7,2.96."This reduced into Cairo Cubits, by dividing by 1,842, gives" just four such Cubits.

I cannot admit of this Argument of the Bishop’s, at least of theinference which he draws from it. For a shorter Cubit will bringout the dimensions of the great Pyramid and its parts in roundnumbers, with better analogy than the Cubit of x 1.8 8 8 Inches..

3 He