Table des Marchands, a dolmen at Lochmariaquer, can explain how the Megalithic came to factorise 945 days as 32 lunar months by looking at the properties of the numbers three, four and five. At that latitude, the solstice angle of the sun on the horizon shone along the 5-side of a 3-4-5 triangle to east and west, seen clearly at the Crucuno Rectangle [post2post id=”237″].
Before numbers were individually notated (as with our 3, 4 and 5
rather than |||, |||| and |||||) and given positional notation (like our
decimal seen in 945 and 27), numbers were lengths or marks and, when marks are
compared to accurately measured lengths measured out in inches, feet, yards,
etc. then each vertical mark would naturally
have represented a single unit of length. This has not been appreciated
as having been behind marks like the cuneiform for ONE; that it probably meant
“one unit of length”.
Natural time periods between celestial phenomena
hold powerful insights into the numerical structure of time, insights which
enabled the megalith builders to access an explanation of the world unlike our
own. When looking at two similarly-long time-periods, the megalithic focussed
on the difference between them, these
causing the two periods to slide in and out of phase, generating a longer
period in which the two celestial bodies exhibit a complete ensemble of
variation, in their relationship to each other. This slippage of phase between
celestial periods holds a pattern purely based upon number, hidden from the
casual observer who does not study them in this way. Such numerical patterns
are only fully revealed through counting time and analysing the difference between
For example, the solar year is
longer than the lunar year by 10 and 7/8 days (10.875 days) and three solar
years are longer than three lunar years by three times 10.875 days, that is by 32
and 5/8th days (32.625 days), which is 32/29 of a single lunar month
of 29.53 days.
The earliest and only explicit evidence for such
a three year count has been found at Le Manio’s Quadrilateral near Carnac (circa
4,000 BCE in Brittany, France) used the inches we still use to count days, a “day-inch”
unit then widespread throughout later megalithic monuments and still our inch,
1/12 of the foot [Heath & Heath. 2011]. The solar-lunar difference found
there over three years was 32.625 day-inches, is probably the origin of the
unit we call the megalithic yard and the megalith builders appear to have
adopted this differential length, between a day-inch count over three lunar and
solar years, in building many later monuments.
The numerical foundations of the “earth mysteries” were nominally present in the medieval doctrine of the four numerical arts, the Quadrivium of sacred numbers, geometry, musical harmony and astronomy. However, these foundations need to be applied to something real which is: the numerical nature of the world seen from being alive upon it. This application gives a completely different set of results to modern science where, instead, numbers are being employed for measurements and calculations (using the physical laws discovered after the medieval period came to an end.)
The ancient mysteries treated numbers as having characteristics seen to be active within the world.
In applying these numerical arts, one comes into contact with mysteries in the form of ancient monuments, art and literary works, these containing the clues required for developing, in oneself, a kind of skill. This skill can mature into being able to recover information in the most unlikely circumstances because something apparently other to oneself is active within you: a developed sense. This I call the autonomous nature of the mysteries, which is essential when going beyond what is simply data in books, monuments, etc. I believe it is mistaken to call such mystery work historical since it is actually happening in the present moment to create something new, whilst appearing to reference data from the past. Historical data provides the necessary starting points for a new work of reconstructing the mysteries within oneself.
came across Rock Art and Ritual by
Brian Smith and Alan Walker, (subtitled Interpreting
the Prehistoric landscapes of the North York Moors. Stroud: History Press
2008. 38.). It tells the story: Following a wildfire of many square miles of
the North Yorkshire Moors, thought ecologically devastating, those interested
in its few decorated stones headed out to see how these antiquities had fared.
Fire had revealed many more stones carrying rock art or in organised
groups. An urgent archaeological effort would be required before the inevitable
regrowth of vegetation.
A photo of one
stone in particular attracted my attention, at a site called Stoupe Brow
(a.k.a. Brow Moor) near Fylingdales, North Yorkshire.
It is not immediately obvious the Crucuno dolmen (figure 1) faces the Crucuno rectangle about 1100 feet to the east. The role of dolmen appears to be to mark the beginning of a count. At Carnac’s Alignments there are large cromlechs initiating and terminating the stone rows which, more explicitly, appear like counts. The only (surviving) intermediate stone lies 216 feet from the dolmen, within a garden and hard-up to another building, as with the dolmen (see figure 2). This length is interesting since it is twice the longest inner dimension of the Crucuno rectangle, implying that lessons learned in interpreting the rectangle might usefully apply when interpreting the distance at which this outlier was placed from the dolmen. Most obviously, the rectangle is 4 x 27 feet wide and so the outlier is 8 x 27 feet from the dolmen.
Around Carnac in Brittany the land is peppered with uniquely-formed megalithic designs. In contrast, Great Britain’s surviving monuments are largely standing stones and stone circles. One might explain this as early experimentation at Carnac followed by a well-organised set of methods and means in Britain. What these experiments near Carnac were concerned with is contentious, there being no appetite, in many parts of society, for a prehistory of high-achieving geometers and exact scientists. Part of the problem is that pioneers interpreting monuments are themselves hampered by their own preferences. Once Alexander Thom had found the megalithic yard as a likely building unit, he tended to use that measure to the exclusion of other known metrological systems (see A.E. Berriman’s Historical Metrology. Similarly, John Neal’s breakthrough in All Done With Mirrors, having found the foot we still use to be the cornerstone of ancient metrology, led to his ambivalent relationship to the megalithic yard. Neal’s interpretation of the Crucuno rectangle employs a highly variable set of megalithic yards, perhaps missing the simpler point, that his foot-based metrology is supported as present within the dimensions of the Crucuno rectangle; said by Thom to be a “symbolic observatory” of the sun: this monument was an educational device, in which Neal finds the geometry of “squaring the circle” which, as we see later, was probably the Rectangle’s main metrological meaning.