339 
of Edinburgh, Session 1867 - 68 . 
length of the sides of the base of the Great Pyramid to be a most 
important problem in a metrological point of view, — th e Proceedings 
author thus addresses himself apparently to that question, under 
the express title of “ What, then, is the exact length of one of its 
“ basis lines?” but really to the purpose of blaming me for nearly 
everything which I either have done, or have not done, with regard 
to both computations and measurements in the matter. 
Apparently for the first purpose, I say, because I cannot find, 
after going through all his pages, that he has advanced the question 
beyond the point where I left it, or come to any other distinct con- 
clusion, or discovered any new authorities. But really for the 
second purpose, from what follows : though I shall only touch 
upon such of the numerous insinuations as may tend, in their 
p. 287, as given to Dr Whitman by a British officer of Engineers, and appear 
there as follows : — 
Feet. Inches. 
Sarcophagus Length, 6 6 
„ Height, 3 54 
„ Thickness of Stone, 0 6 
,, Width within side, 2 2| 
,, Depth, ditto, 2 8 
The general aspect of these measures, taken, as they are, either to whole 
inches only, or mere halves and quarters, shows that no great accuracy 
was aimed at by the said engineer officer. We may also conclude similarly 
from the thickness of sides, ends, and bottom being all indiscriminately 
lumped together as “thickness of stone;” especially when we find that 
the difference of height (outside measure evidently from the term) and 
depth (inside measure also evidently from the term, and from its likewise 
being expressly so stated) makes the bottom thicker by more than one-half 
of the previously stated general thickness of anything and everything about 
the coffer. 
But the chief anomaly touches the Length. That is given only once, and 
without any direct statement of whether it applies to outside or inside of the 
vessel; while there is the indirect symptom that it means outside measure, 
from its standing immediately above “ Height ,” which is a confessed outside 
reference, and as far as possible from depth and width, both stated to be 
inside. Hence, looking to the given measures-list, per se, we can only take 
the length given there, or 78 inches, as outside measure, — and when we sub- 
tract from it double the “ thickness of stone,” there result 66 inches for the 
inside length ; and that quantity used with the given inside width and depth 
does undoubtedly give a capacity content, smaller than my determination by 
about 14,000 inches. 
That 66 inches, however, for inside length, is close upon a foot smaller 
than my measure, which is supported within a very small fraction of an inch 
