Category: Geometry and Metrology

Sacred numbers within metrologically-quantified geometries.

Geometry 7: Geometrical Expansion

above: the dolmen of Pentre Ifan (wiki tab)

In previous lessons, fixed lengths have been divided into any number of equal parts, to serve the notion of integer fractions in which the same length can then be reinterpreted as to its units or as a numerically different measurement. This allows all sorts of rescaling and exploitation of the properties of integer numbers.

Here we present a megalithic method which extended two or more fixed bearings (or alignments), usually based upon a simple geometrical form such as a triangle or a rectangle. This can be how the larger geometries came to be drawn on the landscape (here called landforms) of separated megaliths and natural features which appear to belong together. For example,

Outliers: Alexander Thom found that British stone circle were often associated with single outliers (standing stones) on a bearing that may correspond to horizon event but equally, appears to give clues to the metrology of the circle in the itinerary length to the outlier from the circle’s centre.

Figure 1 Stone circle plans often indicate nearby outliers and stone circles

Stone circles were also placed a significant distance and bearing away (figure 1), according to geometry or horizon events. This can be seen between Castle Rigg and Long Meg, two large flattened circles – the first Thom’s Type-A and the second his Type-B.

Figure 2 Two large megalithic circles appear linked in design and relative placement according to the geometry of the double square.

Expanding geometrically

The site plan of Castle Rigg (bottom left, fig. 1) can have the diagonal of a double square (in red) emerging between two stones which then bracket the chosen direction. This bearing could be maintained by expanding the double square so that west-to-east and south to north expand as the double and single length of a triangle while the hypotenuse then grows towards the desired spot according to a criteria such as, a latitude different to that of Castle Rigg. That is, at any expansion the eastings and northings are known as well as the distance between the two circles while the alignments, east and northeast in this example, are kept true by alignment to previous established points. Indeed, one sees that the small outlier circle of Long Meg, to Little Meg beyond, was again on the same diagonal bearing, according to the slope angle of the cardinal double square.*** One can call this a type of projective geometry.

***This extensive double square relation between megalithic sites was first developed by Howard Crowhurst, in Ireland between Newgrange and Douth in same orientation as figure 2, and by Robin Heath at https://robinheath.info/the-english-lake-district-stone-circles/.

It seems impossible for such arrangements to have been achieved without modern equipment and so the preference is to call these landforms co-incidental.  But, by embracing their intentionality, one can see a natural order between Castle Rigg and, only then, Long Meg’s outlying Little Meg circle, and through this find otherwise hidden evidence of the working methods in the form of erratics or outliers, whose purpose is otherwise unclear.

Equilateral Expansion

The work of Robin Heath in West Wales can be an interesting challenge since not all the key points on his Preseli Vesica are clearly megalithic, perhaps because megaliths can be displaced by settlements or be subsumed by churches, castles and so on. (see Bluestone Magic, chapter 8). First, for completeness, how is a vesica defined today? In his classic Sacred Geometry, Robert Lawlor explains the usual construction and properties of the vesica :

Drawing 2.3. Geometric proof of the √3 proportion within the Vesica Piscis. from Sacred Geometry by Robert Lawlor.

Draw the major and minor axes CD and AB. Draw CA, AD, DB and BC. By swinging arcs of our given radius from either centre A or B we trace along the vesica to points C and D, thus verifying that lines AB, BC, CA, BD and AD are equal to one another and to the radius common to both circles.

We now have two identical equilateral triangles emerging from within the Vesica Piscis. Extend lines CA and CB to intersect circles A and B at points G and F. Lines CG and CF are diameters of the two circles and thus twice the length of any of the sides of the triangles ABC and ABD. Draw FG passing through point D.

Sacred Geometry by Robert Lawlor

Primitive versus later geometry

Lawlor’s presentation have the triangles appearing as the conjuction of two circles and their centers. However, the points and lines of modern geometry translate, when interpreting the megalithic, into built structures or significant features, and the alignments which may join them. The alignments are environmental and in the sky or landscape.

  • A is Pentre Ifan, a dolmen dating from around 3500 BC.
  • B is located in the Carningli Hillfort, a mess of boulders below the peak Carningli (meaning angel mountain). Directly East,
  • C is the ancient village, church and castle of Nevern.
  • D is a recently excavated stone circle, third largest in Britain at around 360 feet diameter, but now ruinous, call Waun Mawn.

The two equilateral triangles have an average side length around 11,760 feet but, as drawn, each line is an alignment of azimuth 330, 0, 30, and 90 degrees and their antipodes. 

The Constructional Order

Relevant here is how one would lay out such a large landform and we will illustrate how this would be done using the method of expansion.

North can be deduced from the extreme elongation of the circumpolar stars in the north, since no pole star existed in 3200BC. At the same time it is possible to align to plus and minus 30 degrees using Ursa Major. This would give the geometry without the geometry so to speak, since ropes 11760 feet long are unfeasible. It seems likely that the Waun Mawn could function as a circumpolar observatory (as appears the case at Le Menec in Brittany, see my Lords of Time).

If the work was to start at Carningli fort, then the two alignments (a) east and (b) to Waun Mawn could be expanded in tandem until the sides were 11760 feet long, ending at the circle to the south and dolmen to the east. The third side between these sites should then be correct.

Figure 3 Proposed use of equilateral expansion from Carnigli fort to both what would become the dolmen of Pentre Ifan (az. 90 degrees) and Waun Mawn (azimuth 150 degrees).

The vesica has been formed to run alongside the mountain. The new eastern point is a dolmen that points north to another dolmen Llech-y-Drybedd on the raised horizon, itself a waypoint to Bardsey Island.

The reason for building the vesica appears wrapped up in the fact that its alignments are only three, tightly held within a fan of 60 degrees pointing north and back to the south. But the building of the double equilateral cannot be assumed to be related to the circular means of its construction given by Lawlor above. That is, megalithic geometry did not have the same roots as sacred geometry which has evolved over millennia since.

Geometry 6: the Geometrical AMY

By 2016 it was already obvious that the lunar month (in days) and the PMY, AMY and yard (in inches) had peculiar relationships involving the ratio 32/29, shown above. This can now be explained as a manifestation of day-inch counting and the unusual numerical properties of the solar and lunar year, when seen using day-inch counting.

It is hard to imagine that the English foot arose from any other process than day-inch counting; to resolve the excess of the solar year over the lunar year, in three years – the near-anniversary of sun and moon. This created the Proto Megalithic Yard (PMY) of 32.625 day-inches as the difference.

Figure 1 The three solar year count’s geometrical demonstration of the excess in length of 3 solar years over 3 lunar years as the 32.625 day-inch PMY.

A strange property of N:N+1 right triangles can then transform this PMY into the English foot, when counting over a single lunar and solar year using the PMY to count months.

The metrological explanation

If one divides the three-year excess (here, the PMY) into the base then N, the normalized base of the N:N+1 triangle. In the case of the sun and moon, N is very nearly 32.625, so that the lunar to solar years are closely in the ratio 32.625:33.625. Because of this, if one counts 

  • months instead of days,
  • using the three-year excess (i.e. the PMY) to stand for the lunar month,
  • over a single year,

the excess becomes, quite unexpectedly, the reciprocal of the PMY;

One has effectively normalized the solar year as 12.368 PMYs long. This single year difference, of 0.368 lunar months cancels with the PMY; the 0.36827 lunar months becoming 12.0147 inches. Were the true Astronomical Megalithic Yard (AMY of 32.585 inches) used, instead of the PMY, the foot of 12 inches would result. Indeed, this is the AMYs definition, as being the N (normalizing value) of 32.585 inches long, unique to the sun-moon cycle. The AMY only becomes clear, in feet, after completion of 19 solar years. This Metonic anniversary of sun and moon over 235 lunar months, is exactly 7 lunar months larger than 19 lunar years (228 months).

But this is all seen using the arithmetical methods of ancient metrology, which did not exist in the megalithic circa 4000BC. Our numeracy can divide the 1063.1 day-inches by 32.625 day-inches, to reveal the AMY as 32.585 inches long, but the megalithic could not. Any attempt to resolve the AMY in the megalithic, using a day-inch technology***, without arithmetical processes, could not resolve the AMY over 3 years as it is a mere 40 thousandths of an inch smaller than the PMY. So arithmetic provides us with an explanation, but prevents us from explaining how the megalithic came to have a value for the AMY; only visible over long itineraries requiring awkward processes to divide using factorization. However, by exploiting the coincidences of number built in to the lunar and solar years, geometry could oblige. 

***One can safely assume the early megalithic resolved
eighths or tenths of an inch when counting day-inches.

The geometrical explanation

In proposing the AMY was properly quantified, in the similarly early megalithic cultures of Carnac in France and the Preselis in Wales, one must turn to a geometrical method

  1. One clue is that the yard of 3 feet (36 inches) is exactly 32/29ths of the PMY. This shows itself in the fact that 32 PMYs equal 29 yards.
  2. Another clue is that the lunar month had been quantified (at Le Manio) by finding 32 months equalled 945 day-inches. By inference, the lunar month is therefore 945 day-inches divided by 32 or 945/32 (29.53125) day-inches – very close to our present knowledge of 29.53059 days.

From point 1, one can geometrically express any length that is 32 relative to another of 29, using the right triangle (29,32). And from point 2, since the 945 day period is 32 lunar months, as a length it will be in the ratio 29 to 32 to a length 32 PMYs long, the triangle’s hypotenuse.

Point 1 also means that 32 PMY (of 32.625 inches) will equal 1044 inches, which must also be 29 x 36 inches, and 29 yards hence handily divides the 32 side of the {29 32} right triangle into 29 portions equal to a yard on that side. One can then “mirror the right triangle about its 29-side so as to be able to draw 29 parallel lines between the two, mirrored, 32-sides, as shown in figure 1. The 945 day-inch 29-side which already equals 32 lunar months (in day-inches), now has 29 megalithic yards in that length, which are then an AMY of 945/29 day-inches!

Figure The 29:32 relationship of the PMY to the yard as 32 PMY = 29 yards whilst 32 lunar months (945 days) is 29 AMY.

Comparing the two AMYs and their necessary origins

Using a modern calculator, 945 divided by the PMY actually gives 28.9655 PMY and not 29, so that 945 inches requires a unit slightly smaller than the PMY and 945/29 gives the result as 32.586 inches, which length one could call the geometrical AMY. This AMY is 30625/30624 of the AMY in ancient metrology which is arrived at as 2.7 feet times 176/175 equal to 32.585142857 inches. By implication therefore, the ancient AMY is the root Drusian step whose formula is 19.008/7 feet whilst the first AMY was resolved by the megalithic to be 945/29 inches.

This geometrical AMY (gAMY?) obviously hailed from the world of day-inch counting, which preceded the ancient arithmetical metrology which was based upon fractions of the English foot. The gAMY is 32/29 of the lunar month of 29.53125 (945/32) day-inches, since 945/32 inches × 32/29 is 945/29 inches.

Using ancient metrology to interpret the earliest megalithic monuments may be questionable in the absence of a highly civilised source which had, in an even greater antiquity, provided it; from an “Atlantis”. In contrast, the monumental record of the megalithic suggests that geometrical methods were in active development and involved less sophisticated metrology, on a step-by-step basis.  From this arose the English foot which, being twelve times larger than the inch, could provide the more versatile metrology of fractional feet, to provide a pre-arithmetical mechanism, to solve numerical problems through geometrical re-scaling. This foot based, fractional metrology then developed into the ancient metrology of Neal and Michell, which itself survived to become our historical metrology [Petrie and Berriman].

The two types of AMY, geometrical and the metrological, though not identical are practically indistinguishable; the AMY being just over one thousandths of an inch larger. The geometrical AMY (945/29 inches) is shown, by figure 2, to be geometrically resolvable, and so must have preceded the metrological AMY, itself only 40 thousandths of an inch less than the PMY.

The two AMYs, effectively identical, reveal a developmental history starting with day-inch counting, and division of 945 inches by 29 was made easy by exploiting the alternative factorisation of 32 PMV as 36 × 29 yards using geometry. The AMY of ancient metrology was the necessary rationalization of 945/29 inches into the foot- based system.

Bibliography for Ancient Metrology

  1. Berriman, A. E. Historical Metrology. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1953.
  2. Heath, Robin, and John Michell. Lost Science of Measuring the Earth: Discovering the Sacred Geometry of the Ancients. Kempton, Ill.: Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. Reprint edition of The Measure of Albion.
  3. Heath, Richard. Sacred Geometry: Language of the Angels. Vermont: Inner Traditions 2022.
  4. Michell, John. Ancient Metrology. Bristol, England: Pentacle Press, 1981.
  5. Neal, John. All Done with Mirrors. London: Secret Academy, 2000.
  6. —-. Ancient Metrology. Vol. 1, A Numerical Code—Metrological Continuity in Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age Europe. Glastonbury, England: Squeeze, 2016 – read 1.6 Pi and the World.
  7. —-. Ancient Metrology. Vol. 2, The Geographic Correlation—Arabian, Egyptian, and Chinese Metrology. Glastonbury, England: Squeeze, 2017.
  8. —-. Ancient Metrology, Vol. 3, The Worldwide Diffusion – Ancient Egyptian, and American Metrology.  The Squeeze Press: 2024.
  9. Petri, W. M. Flinders. Inductive Metrology. 1877. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Le Site Mégalithique du Manio à Carnac

by Howard Crowhurst

Perched on a hill in the forest north of the Carnac alignments, a megalithic site has escaped the fences that have littered the landscapes of the region for several years. These are the menhir and the quadrilateral of Manio. From the outset, the large menhir impresses with its dimensions. Nearly 5m50 high, it is the highest standing stone in the town.

More discreet, the quadrilateral caps the top. 90 upright and contiguous stones, varying in height between 10 cm and 1m60, make up an enclosure approximately 36 meters long and 8 meters wide on average, because the long sides converge. The stones at the ends draw a curve. Four stones to the northeast form the remains of a circle. Two menhirs, much larger than all the other stones in the quadrilateral, open a kind of door in the south file. This particular form questions us. What could she be used for? Was it a meeting place, maybe an enclosure for sheep? In fact, what we see today is probably only the outer skeleton of a larger monument, a mound of stone and earth that contained a chamber inside. Other remains complicate the whole, unless they help us solve our puzzle. Hidden in the brambles and brush, we can discover a stone on the ground of rounded shape. These curves are reminiscent of the belly of a pregnant woman. She is nicknamed the “Lady” of the Manio.

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.

My thanks to Dan Palmateer of Nova Scotia
for his graphics and dialogue for this series.

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