Sacred Geometry is metrical, it is based upon the interactive properties of “natural” (that is, whole) numbers and cosmic constants.
We live in a civilization where everything is thought to be functionally due to forces and laws, these all calculated using numbers and algebra. For this reason, it is hard to see the influence of numbers acting directly in situations to reveal that, geometrical forms are only possible due to numbers. One such form is the equal perimeter circle and square: this figuring heavily in my later books, as an ancient model, and in postings on this website (opens in new tab).
This is one hour interview around my new book on Ancient Goddess Cultures use of sacred geometry and other skills the ancients had, which our present culture dutifully ignore. below: Interviewer Jim Harold at Stonehenge vis Facebook.
The Norton Disney Archaeology Group found an example of a “Gallo Roman Dodecahedron”. One of archaeology’s great enigmas,
there are now about 33 known examples in what was Roman occupied Britain.
An Interpretation of its Height
The opposed flat pentagons of a regular duodecagon gives us its height, in this case measured to be 70 mm. Dividing 0.070 meters by 0.3048 gives 0.22965 feet and, times 4, gives a possible type of foot as 0.91864 or 11/12 feet**.
** Where possible, one should seek the rational fraction of the foot, here 11/12, over the decimal measurement which assumed base-10 arithmetic and loses the integer factors at work within the system of ancient foot-based metrology.
The May-June edition of New Dawn has this review from Alan Glassman of Sacred Geometry in Ancient Goddess Cultures.
Midwest Book Review
Below is a Midwest Book Review for Sacred Geometry in Ancient Goddess Cultures
Critique: This large format (8 x 0.8 x 10 inches, 2.16 pounds) hardcover edition of “Sacred Geometry in Ancient Goddess Cultures: The Divine Science of the Female Priesthood” from Inner Traditions beautifully and profusely illustrated throughout and of immense value to readers with an interest in the sciences of antiquity in general, and the metaphysical history of numbers/mathematics in particular. While a unique and invaluable pick for personal, professional, community, and college/university library collections, it should be noted for historians, as well as metaphysical students and practitioners that the book is also available in a digital book format (Kindle, $31.99).
Volume as cubes reveal the wholeness of number as deriving from the unit cube as corner stone defining side length and “volume” of the whole.
The first cube (above left) is a single cube of side length one. One is its own cornerstone. The first cubic number is two to the power of three, with side length two and volume equal to eight cubes that define the unit corner stone.
In modern thinking, and functional arithmetic, volume increases with side length but the cube itself, as archetype of space, is merely divided by the side length of the unit cornerstone, which is 1/8th the volume and therefore reciprocal to the volume of 8 leaving the cube singular.
This may not seem important but, by dividing a whole cube, one is releasing more and more of the very real behavior that exists between numbers, within the cube. For example the number 8 gives relations between numbers 1 to 8, such as the powers of two {1,2,4,8} and the harmonic ratios {2/1, 3/2, 4/3,5/4,6/5}. These can give an important spine of {4/3, 5/4,6/5} which equals 6/3 = 2 of the yet to (numerically) be octave of eight note classes. Moving to side length 3, the cube of three is twenty seven (27), as seen in figure above, top right. To obtain it, the corner stone must be side length 1/3, and volume 1/27 so that, in these units, the volume of the cube is 27.
If one were to reciprocally double the 1/3 side length, each cornerstone unit would have 8 subunits, so that the volume of 27 would be times 8 which equals Plato’s number of 216. Another view is then that the cornerstone side length has divided the bottom right cube into six units which number, 6, cubed, is 216 a perfect number for Plato.
By accepting the cube of one as the whole, this form of thinking reciprocally divides that whole side length to generate an inner structure within the whole cube of one, equal to the denominator of the reciprocation. The role of the whole is then to be the arithmetic mean between a number and its reciprocal. This procedure maintains balance between what is smaller than the whole (the reciprocal) and what is larger than the whole (in this case the volume).
In ancient tuning theory this was expressed by the two hexchords descending and ascending from the tonic (we might call do), expressed by the two hands. The octave of eight and the cube are both wholes to be broken into by numbers greater than one by means of reciprocation.
Ernest G. McClain revealed the scale of such thinking was massive, whilst also but secretly reciprocal, so that a limiting number could express how different wholes will behave due to their inner diversity of numbers at work within them.
In this example, a musical code for planetary resonance is revealed within the metrology of the Parthenon (above), implied tone set (right) and octave mountain of numbers below 1440 (left bottom). In this case the number 24 has been multiplied by 60 to give a limiting number of 1440. The cornerstone in this case is bottom left of the mountain = 1024, a pure power of 210.
By simply quoting a limiting number, in passing, ancient texts could, in the hands of an initiate, create an enormous world of tonal and impied religious meaning – through a kind of harmonic allusion.
It is only by using the conceptual approach of the ancients, that their intellectual life can be recovered – just by adding the waters of number and some powers of imagination.
One sees most clearly how a single concrete measure such as 58 feet can take the meaning of the design into the numbers required to create it. However, metrology of feet and types of feet can hide the elegance of a design.
I received Michael Glickman’s Crop Circles: The Bones of God at the weekend and each chapter is a nicely written and paced introduction to a given years worth of crop circles generally in the noughties. The above is the second in proximity to Stonehenge reminding keen croppers of an earlier one. This cicle preceeded the late-season (August) circle at Crooked Soley that I have an analysis of soon to be posted, drawing on Allan Brown’s small book on it.
Glickman’s chapter 10 : Stonehenge Ribbons and Crooked Soley provided a tentative analysis of the Ribbons as having the ends of the ribbons measuring 58 feet. The design was observed as making use of a single half circle building block for most of the emergent six arms emerging from the center. Michael suggested that there were 13 equal units of 58 feet across the structure.
Figure 10.4 Showing thirteen divisions of one of the three diameters of ribbons. photo: Steve Alexander.
From this I was able to observe that clearly the divisions were not equal in size and the white ones were clearly smaller as was the central circle’s diameter. Scanning the picture and placing it in my Visio program, so that a rectangle of 58mm was equal to the diameter of the right hand ribbon end, it was possible to determine that the ratio between these lengths was 5 to 4, or 5/4, from which the shorter white length must be 46.4 feet and that the diameter can be seen as 9 units across, that is 104.4 feet. The unit is 104.4 feet divided by 9 which equals 11.6 feet, which is 10 feet of 1.16 feet, the root reciprocal of the Russian foot of 7/6 feet, that is 7/6 feet divided by 175/176 (= 1.16). Going down the “Russian” root led to the diagram below.
My analysis of Michael Glickman’s figure reveals a span of 580 Russian Feet.
There are parallax errors so I have had to show the ideal designed shortened across the left-hand of the design, but the design has many numerical aspects where each arm is 27 units so that two arms are 54 which, plus the center, gives 58 times 10 equaling 580 Russian feet. But then I noted that 58 feet, divided by 5, gave the unit as 11.6 English feet while 58 feet divides into the 58 unit diameter across the crop circle.
Now we see a set of multiples of 29 are there as numbers {29 58 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 … }. The reciprocal Russian at 1.16 feet and the unit of 11.6 feet are decimal echoes of the number 29. The formula of the Proto Megalithic yard is 87/32 feet and 261/8 inches.
To be continued
One sees most clearly how a single concrete measure such as 58 feet can take the meaning of the design into the numbers required to create it.
