│ │1.49 │1.50 │1.495│1.49 │1.52 │1.50 │ (?) │──── │──── │──── │ │──── │──── │ │ │1.57 │1.57 │1.565│1.56 │──── │──── │ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ │ │1.64 │1.645│1.64 │──── │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ │ │──── │ ────│──── │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ ″ │ │─────────────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+─────+──────+ │Sure │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ intervals │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 11 │ 10 │ 6 │ 8 │ 8 │ 11 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ │Total length │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of intervals│ .76 │ .75 │ .76 │ .73 │ .74 │ .68 │ .44 │ .53 │ .57 │ .74 │ .48 │ .57 │ .66 │ │Unit │.069 │ .068│ .069│ .066│ .067│ .068│ .073│ .066│ .071│ .067│ .069│ .071│ .073 │ │ │ │ Average unit for lower series .0690 m. │ +────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────+ (18) It is noteworthy, in the lower series, that the horizontal lines on the chains are stepped-up as we proceed towards the right; the upper series do not shew this peculiarity. Another point is that in only one case does one of the marks coincide with the red line _c_, and never at all with the black line _b_; had this not been so one would imagine that two sets of measures were being compared. {19} If we multiply up the unit of .069 metre we get: .069 × .25 = .01725 .069 × .5 = .0345 .069 × 1 = .069 .069 × 2 = .138 .069 × 3 = .207 .069 × 4 = .276 .069 × 5 = .345 .069 × 6 = .414 .069 × 7 = .483 .069 × 8 = .552 .069 × 9 = .621 .069 × 10 = .690 .069 × 11 = .759 .069 × 12 = .828 It will be seen from this that the unit, if it is a unit, is not a factor of the royal Egyptian cubit of .525 m., nor of the small cubit of .45 m., neither is it connected with the Egyptian finger of .0187 m. Further, it bears no relation to the obelisk single- or double-foot. Since we have no information as to whether this unit of .069 metre is a sixth, eighth, tenth or twelfth of a foot or cubit, it is rather unwise to try to reconcile it with the known Egyptian units, as, even during the same reign, the influx of foreign measures and the variations of the native measures would enable us to find an equivalent to almost any unit that could be imagined. I am aware that DECOURDEMANCHE, in the _Annales du Service_, volume XII, page 215, gives the measure .06925 as a palm of the “lapidary” cubit of .4155 m., but I place very little reliance on this cubit, as it only explains the dimensions of one tomb measured by Amélineau at Abydos, and this tomb can be equally well rendered in the royal cubit system.