218 Dr. Arnott on the Proportions of the Pyramids of Egypt. 



account, the proportions arc accidentally inverted, and that instead of the 

 height being 625 and the base 600, he meant to say that the base was 

 625 and the height 600, we shall find the proportion to be almost quite 

 correct, on the supposition that by the height was intended likewise the 

 sloping line along the angle or ridge of the pyramid. 



I have therefore no hesitation in assigning the following proportions to 

 the pyramids : — Half side of the base 3, perpendicular height 4, sloping 

 height from the middle of a side of the base to the top 5, and the line 

 along the ridge or angle V 34=5*83 nearly. Each face of the pyramid 

 is thus not very different from an equilateral triangle, but still sufficiently 

 so as to indicate that such a construction was not intended. 



The angle of elevation of each face of the pyramid is about 53° 7' 9", 

 and hence the pyramid casts no shadow from about the 3d March to the 

 11th October, so that the hypothesis of this being limited to the equinoxes 

 is not correct. Other considerations, too, have now rendered it doubtful 

 to me, if these buildings were proportioned solely for astronomical pur- 

 poses, although there can be no question as to astronomy, and the arkite 

 worship being intimately connected with the worship of Isis and Osyris. 



As the pyramids differed in size from each other, it is unnecessary to 

 speculate on what was the actual length of the sides of the base, or the 

 height. In all probability they were not the result of chance, but referred 

 to some scale of measures (either square or lineal) adopted by the ancient 

 Egyptians, but now scarcely known. 



The subject is of more importance than at first sight it would appear, 

 because the angle of elevation and the proportions are more easily deter- 

 mined now than the actual dimensions, and when they are once satisfac- 

 torily obtained, the true magnitude of the pyramids will cease to be a 

 problem of difficulty. Moreover, the size of the great pyramid has been 

 attempted to be ascertained, by converting the length of the base and height 

 given by different authors, ancient and modern, into an uniform standard 

 of feet, French or English, and taking the average of the whole ; but if, as I 

 have endeavoured to show, the height spoken of by some could not be the 

 perpendicular height, we must either reject them, or assume that either the 

 sloping height or the length of the ridge was intended, these alone tally- 

 ing with the proportions ascertained by Belzoni in the second pyramid ; 

 and then it is obvious that, before taking the average, we must reduce 

 the different kinds of height to the perpendicular or true height, as I have 

 done. We ought also to determine, if possible, whether the observers 

 supposed the pyramid complete, or reckoned only the height of the plat- 

 form. By not adverting to these, we find in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 

 seventh edition, article Egypt, (vol. viii. p. 568,) that the mean of the 

 observations, since the time of Pliny, gives the base 693 feet and height 

 510 ; while the mean derived from the ancient writers is 702 feet for the 

 base and 675 for the height, the average of these being 697 and 592 ; 

 these measures are, as I have said, in French, not English feet, as the 

 author would lead one to suppose. In Murray's excellent Encyclopaedia 



