From Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels 2

Part two (part one) of a serialisation from Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels, Appendix 1.
(book available in first few weeks of 2021)
This is relevant to many on-site posts.

Overview of Megalithic Units of Measure

At least five specific MYs have emerged from the counting applications within megalithic monuments:

1. The proto megalithic yard (PMY) of 32.625 day-inches, emanating from an original day-inch count over 3 solar and 3 lunar years (at the Manio Quadrilateral) as the difference in their duration (chapter 1). This is therefore an artifact of the world of inch counting.

2. The Crucuno megalithic yard (CMY) of 2.7 feet: We saw that, by the factorization of 32 lunar months as 945 days long, the lunar month (as 29.53125 days long) can be represented by 10 MYs of 2.7 feet (27 ft) where the days in such a count are the Iberian foot of 32/35 feet. This I call the Crucuno megalithic yard, though, in the historical period, this foot came to be called the root foot (27/25 feet) of the Drusian module, which, times 25, is then 27 feet. The astronomical megalithic yard AMY (next) is 176/175 of the CMY.

3. The astronomical megalithic yard (AMY): In Britain, this is 2.715 feet (32.585 inches) long, giving N = 32.585 for the actual N:N + 1 differential ratio between the solar and lunar years. When representing lunar months over a single year, the excess becomes the English foot of 12 inches—a megalithic, now-called English, foot. From this one sees that every AMY on the base of the Lunation Triangle defines an AMY plus 1 inch on the hypotenuse above it (length N + 1 = 33.585 inches – a Spanish vara), as the duration 1 mean solar month. The AMY can appear as an integer when the CMY defines a radius because it is 176/175 of the CMY.

4. The nodal megalithic yard (NMY): Used in Britain. Thom’s Megalithic Sites in Britain gave the megalithic yard as having had the value of 2.72 feet as “the” MY, based on integer geometries within stone circles and some statistical methods applied to some of the other inter-stone distances Thom had measured. Its value evidently derives from its relationship to the nodal period of 6800 day-feet because 2.72 =6800/2500, where 2500 feet is half a metrological mile of 5000 feet. For this reason, I now call it the nodal megalithic yard (NMY), which contains the key prime number 17 in its formula 272/100, 272 being 16 times 17. Its megalithic rod (NMY times 2.5) of 6.8 feet factorized the nodal period of 6800 days: 15 rods gave 102 feet (3400 shu.si) and 30 rods gave 204 feet (6800 shu.si – e.g. Clava and Avebury), the shu.si being 204/6800 = 3/100 feet. It therefore appears that the NMY, its rod of 6.8 feet, and the shu.si had a raison d’être in the British megalithic period that was focused on the later problem in astronomy of counting the days of the nodal period.

5. The later* megalithic yard (LMY): Seen at Stonehenge and Avebury. Thom in 1978 published a new estimate for the MY as 2.722 feet. Unbeknownst to Thom but lurking within his own error bars was a further development of the AMY which, times 441/440, would locate his value within ancient metrology as 2.716 feet, 126/125 of the CMY. The CMY is clearly the root value (in Neal’s terminology 2.5 root Drusian of 27/25 feet) and the AMY the root canonical value, while this LMY is the standard canonical value.
*in the context of Thom’s work.

All of these different megalithic yards had their place in the megalithic people’s pursuit of their astronomical knowledge. Noting the role of the shu.si in compressing the length of a nodal count to a mere 204 feet, Thom’s NMY of 2.72 is the key to how its length of 3/100 feet was arrived at. The shu.si of 0.03 feet (0.36 inches) surprisingly divides into many of the historical modules of foot-based metrology.

Historical
Module
Foot Ratioshi.siNotes
Assyrian 9/1030Carrying the sexagesimal (base-60)
system of the Sumerians.
Roman42/2532
Inverse Byzantine99/10033Times 3 gives 99, a yard minus one shu.si.
English133.3Times 3 gives 100 shu.si in a yard.
?51/5034Divides into the nodal period.
The difference between 80 and
81.6 feet and between 90 and
91.8 feet at Seascale, where 91.8
locates the Jupiter synodic period.
Persian21/2035Its remen (6/5) is 42 shu.si.
Drusian27/2536The CMY is root of the AMY and
the LMY.
Remen6/540Half-remen of 20 shu.si as ideal
form of the equal perimeter model.
Some units commensurate with the shu.si

From Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels

Part one of a serialisation from Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels, Appendix 1.
(Available: first few weeks of 2021)
This is relevant to many on-site posts.

Metrology has appeared in modern times (phase five below) in reverse order, since humankind saw the recent appearance of many measures in different countries as indicative that past cultures made up units of measure as and when they needed them, perhaps based upon lengths found in the human body. But this soon breaks down under scrutiny because the measures called after different regions all have systematic ratios between them, such as 24/25 feet (which as a foot is the Roman) and 6/5 feet (which is an aggregate unit, a remen), and the size of humans is quite various between regions and within populations. As stated in the main body of this book, the notion of measures from different regions was called historical metrology. This framework began to break down when answers appeared as to why the different regional feet were related, not only to the English foot as equalling one for each ratio, but also to the fact that the units of measure were often seen to divide into the size and shape of the Earth (leading to our phase four)—then called ancient metrology.

Another aspect of measures was their ability to approximate important, otherwise irrational, constants (our phase 3), such as π, √2 and even e in the form of megalithic yards, which are close to 2.71828 feet, the numerical value of e—the exponential constant. The earliest megalithic yard was almost exactly that number of feet—derived from an astronomical count over three lunar and solar years in day-inches (chapter 1) leaving a 32.625-inch difference between these years (our phase one); those 32.625 inches equal 2.71875 (87/32) feet.

The gap between the first and second phases of metrology seems to be the gap in time between the megalithic in Brittany and in Britain. Only as the metrological purpose of more megalithic monuments becomes clear might one be able to know more accurately, but British metrology, in choosing a megalithic yard of 2.72, was able to factor the nodal prime number of 17 within its counting. While Brittany could, at Le Ménec’s western cromlech, use a radius of 17 megalithic rods (6.8 feet) to have a count of 3400 megalithic inches across a diameter, Britain could use 12 such rods to model the lunar year of 12 months while also counting 15 rods as 3400 shu.si, a small digit known to historical metrology as dividing the 1.8 foot (the double Assyrian foot of 0.9 feet) into 60 parts, while the shu.si (0.03 feet) divides into many foot modules (see p. 112), and the English yard contains 100 shu.si, and 68 yards contains 6800 shu.si enabling the nodal period to be counted at Balnuaran in Scotland.

There is a particular need to regularize this subject through the gathering of more examples of metrology’s past applications. One must recognize that those responsible for our present knowledge of it have largely passed away, and those in academia are not going to rewrite history in order to impartially reassess whether their own approach to ignoring it can still be justified, especially when they are not preserving the metrology within monuments because they can’t see it as a signal from the past.

go to next part

Geometry 4: Right Triangles within Circles

This series is about how the megalithic, which had no written numbers or arithmetic, could process numbers, counted as “lengths of days”, using geometries and factorization.

This lesson is a necessary prequel to the next lesson.

It is an initially strange fact that all the possible right triangles will fit within a half circle when the hypotenuse equals the half-circles diameter. The right angle will then exactly touch the circumference. From this we can see visually that the trigonometrical relationships, normally defined relative to the ratios of a right triangle’s sides, conform to the properties of a circle.

A triangle with sides {3 4 5} demonstrates the general fact that, when a right triangle’s hypotenuse is the diameter of a circle, the right angle touches the circumference.
Continue reading “Geometry 4: Right Triangles within Circles”

Geometry 3: Making a circle from a counted length

The number of days in four years is a whole number of 1461 days if one approximates the solar year to 365¼ days. This number is found across the Le Manio Quadrilateral (point N to J) using a small counting unit, the “day-inch”, exactly the same length as the present day inch. It is an important reuse of a four-year count to be able to draw a circle of 1461 days so that this period of four years can become a ouroboros snake that eats its own tale because then, counting can be continuous beyond 1461 days. This number also permits the solar year to be counted in quarter days; modelling the sun’s motion within the Zodiac by shifting a sun marker four inches every day.

Figure 1 How a square of side length 11 will equal the perimeter of a circle of diameter 14

Our goal then is to draw a circle that is 1461 day-inches in perimeter. From Diagram 1 we know that a rope of 1461 inches could be divided into 4 equal parts to form a square and from that, an in-circle to that square has a diameter equal to a solar year of 365¼ days. Also, with reference to Figure 1, we know that the out-circle will have a diameter of 14 units long relative to the in-circle diameter being 11 units long, and this out-circle will have the perimeter of 1461 inches that we seek.

Figure 3 A general method, using the equal perimeters model, applied to a 4 solar year day count of 1461 day-inches, found as a linear count at the Manio Quadrilateral. A square, formed from this linear count, can be transformed into an outer circle of equal perimeter using the simple geometry of π as 22/7.

For this, the solar year rope (the in-circle diameter) needs to be divided into 11 parts. Start by choosing a number that, when multiplied by 11, is less that 365 (and a 1/4). For instance, 33. A new rope will be formed, 11 x 33 = 363 inches, marked every 33 inches to provide 11 divisions. Through experience, we discover we need 2 identical ropes so as to make practical use of the properties of symmetry through attaching ropes to both ends of the solar diameter rope.

Place one rope at the West side of the in-circle diameter and swing it up until it touches the in-circle. Place the other rope at the East side of the in-circle diameter and swing it down until it touches the edge of the in-circle. Now connect the 33 inch marks between the 2 ropes. This will divide the 365 1/4 diameter into 11 segments.

Seven of those segments are the new radius to create the 1461 inch outer-circle.

Figure 3 Division of the in-circle into eleven equal parts so as to select 7 units as a radius rope to then form the circle of diameter 14 units and perimeter 1461 inches.

This novel application of the equal perimeters model, rescued from Victorian textbooks by John Michell and applied by him most memorably perhaps to Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid (in Dimensions of Paradise) is a general method for taking a counted length and reliably forming a radius rope able to transform that counted length into a circle of the same perimeter as the square, easily formed by four sides ¼ of the desired length.

The site survey at the start, drawn by Robin Heath, appeared in our survey of Le Manio.

Preface: The Metrology of the Brochs

feature picture: Broch of Mousa. The broch on the island of Mousa is the best-preserved of the many brochs in northern Scotland. It is thought to be some 2000 years old
credit: Anne Burgess / Broch of Mousa / CC BY-SA 2.0

I wrote this preface for Euan MacKie who had resurrected his work on measures found within the brochs of Scotland. Euan was almost a lone voice in support of Alexander Thom’s work on metrology in the megalithic, and also the long distance alignments in the Western Isles of Scotland. When he met John Neal at the latter lecture in Glasgow, at which I was present, they appear to have entered into a review of the data and John Neal came back with an interesting theory which would make a full range of historic measures to have been employed in one area of northern Scotand, in the Iron Age. I sent Euan a summary of what ancient metrology appeared to be as a system of ratios and why Neal’s finding within MacKie’s data would be important. It became the preface for the article called The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c.700 BC-AD 500: Orkney and Shetland Isles Pt. 1: Architecture and Material Culture (British Archaeological Reports British Series) which I have recovered from a partial proof copy.

Preface

by Richard Heath

John Neal has demonstrated elsewhere [All Done With Mirrors, John Neal, 2000] that ancient metrology was based upon a “backbone” of just a few modules that each related as simple rational fractions to the “English” Foot. Thus a Persian foot was, at its root value, 21/20 English feet, the Royal foot 8/7 such feet, the Roman, 24/25 feet and so on. By this means, one foot allows the others to be generated from it.

These modules each had a set of identical variations within, based on one or more applications of just two fractions, Ratio A = 176/175 and Ratio B = 441/440. By this means ail the known historical variations of a given type of foot can be accounted for, in a table of lengths with ratio A acting horizontally and ratio B vertically, between adjacent measures.

In the context of what follows, this means that each of the differently-sized brochs analysed by Neal appear to have used a foot from one or other of these ancient modules, in one of its known variations. That is, the broch builders seem to have chosen a different unit of measure rather than a différent measurement, as we would today, when building a differently sized building. Furthermore, these brochs appear to have been based upon the prototypical yet accurate approximation to pi of 22/7, so that – providing the broch diameter would divide by seven using the chosen module – then the perimeter would automatically divide into 22 whole parts.

Thus, John Neal’s discovery that broch diameters divide by seven using a wide range of ancient measures implies that the broch builders had – (a) inherited the original system of ancient measures with its rational interrelations between modules and variations within these, from which they could choose, to suit a required overall size of circular building, often the foundations available: (b) were practicing a design concept found in the construction of stone circles during the Neolithic period.

These measures, used in the brochs, are not often found elsewhere in Britain, but are historically associated with locations hundreds if not thousands of miles distant. This suggests that the historical identification of such measures is only a record of the late use of certain modules in different regions, after the system as a whole had finally been forgotten, sometime after the brochs were constructed.

Such conclusions, if correct, are of such a fundamental character that they present a compelling case for ancient metrology and its forensic power within the archaeology of ancient building techniques.

—x—

Throughout Scotland and the Scottish islands there are in excess of 200 major broch sites. The following analysis is taken from, what I believe to be, the accurately measured inner diameters of 49 of them as supplied by Professor Euan MacKie. The modules are expressed in English feet although the original measurements were taken in metres and converted to feet at the rate of 3.2808427 feet to the metre. The range of diameters extends from the smallest, at Mousa, 18.897654ft, to the greatest at Oxtrow at 44.816311ft. John Neal’s original work on this can be found in this article, from this website’s earlier incarnation which also included a version of Appendix 2 of Sacred Number and the Origins of Civilization – soon also to be added, for reference.

Read 145 times by September 2012 10:28

Sacred Number and the Origins of Civilization

Published by Inner Traditions

Back Cover

ANCIENT MYSTERIES / NEW SCIENCE

“Richard Heath sweeps away the mechanistic and relativistic paradigm to reveal an earth-centered, celestial system founded upon the beauty of musical harmony and geometric symmetry.”
–Robert Lawlor, author of Sacred Geometry and Voices of the First Day

“Richard Heath effectively rewrites the book on the mysterious but accomplished megalithic cultures preceding ancient Egypt, Sumer, China, and India.”
–John Anthony West, author of Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt

“. . . well-expressed, with a deep insight into the ancient science.”
–John Michell, author of The Dimensions of Paradise

The ubiquitous use of certain sacred numbers and ratios can be found throughout history, influencing everything from art and architecture to the development of religion and secret societies. In Sacred Number and the Origins of Civilization, Richard Heath reveals the origins, widespread influences, and deeper meaning of these synchronous numerical occurrences and how they were left within our planetary environment during the creation of the earth, the moon, and our solar system.

Exploring astronomy, harmony, geomancy, sacred centers, and myth, Heath reveals the secret use of sacred number knowledge in the building of Gothic cathedrals and the important influence of sacred numbers in the founding of modern Western culture. He explains how the Templar design of Washington, D.C., represents the New Jerusalem, and he identifies the role secret societies play as a repository for sacred numerical information. Those who attempt to decode its meaning without understanding the planetary origins of this knowledge are left with contradictory, cryptic, and often deceptive information. By examining prehistoric and monumental cultures through the Dark Ages and later recorded history, Sacred Number and the Origins of Civilization provides a key to understanding the true role and meaning of number.

Richard Heath is a Web developer with degrees in electrical and computer engineering. The author of The Matrix of Creation: Sacred Geometry in the Realm of the Planets, he lives in Scotland.