Over the years two Egyptian math papers (on the EMLR and RMP,) have been submitted to the British Museum(BM). Both papers received silence (on the theoretical aspects).
The three-part museum, anthropology, archeology approaches continues to create silent theoretical responses. It is true that anthropology, archeology and museum objects can fairly introduce applied math threads. But as deeper math topics emerge, do not anthropology, archeology and museum introductions fad in importance?.
For example, surveys of Egyptian objects residing in the British Museum, Louvre and other museums have been photographed, discussed in basic ways and published by:
For example,Egyptian art ideas were fairly introduced by the three-part anthropology, archaeology, and museum approach on 206
"In a word, painting was in Egypt the mere humble servant of architecture and sculpture. We must not dream ofcomparing it with our own, or even with that of theGreeks; but if we take it simply for what it is,accepting it in the secondary place assigned to it, we cannot fail to recognise its unusual merits."
A second example shows that Egyptian math is harder to recognize than Egyptian art. The following quote found on page 35 is true on theoretical levels as well:
" The taxation of ancient Egypt was levied in kind, and government servants were paid after the same system. To workmen, there were monthly distributions of corn, oil, and wine, wherewith to support their families; while from end to end of the social scale, each functionary, in exchange for his labour, received cattle, stuffs, manufactured goods, and certain quantities of copper or precious metals. Thus it became necessary that the treasury officials should have the command of vast storehouses for the safe keeping of the various goods collected under the head of taxation. These were classified and stored in separate quarters, each storehouse being surrounded by walls and guarded by vigilant keepers. " .
Note that the hard to decode theoretical math topics were not discussed or footnoted in the Gutenberg project. My view says that omitting attested theoretical specifics are' akin to throwing a baby out with the bath water. At some point all of the scribal theoretical details should be linked and explained.
Today aspects of the 2/n tables and the pesu, an inverse proportion, are considered controversial. Only misleading additive (practical) aspects of 2/n tables and the pesu, that monitored wage and taxes to Pharaoh are published.
As a few members of this list may be aware, the 100 year old museum, anthropology and archeology approach consistently fails to decode most of the scribal theoretical aspects of unit fraction math.
In conclusion, it is true that scholars have explained aspects of the pesu,and other math concepts, but not within Egypt's unit fraction numeration system. Ahmes in 1650 BCE spent 1/3 of the RMP to discuss a 50 member 2/n table. RMP 36 used to 2/n table to solve 30/53 by substituting 2/53(30/30) + 28/53(2/2), the best scribal math door. These facts must be connected to Ahmes' pesu problems. One outline of this topic may open the larger door to the past:
Best Regards to all. Maybe 2012 will be the year that Egyptology and math history journals begin to formally connect to scribal number theory presented by 2/n tables the pesu, and the economic world that Ahmes and Egyptian scribes worked hard to support.