Archaeologists are adamant that the megalithic yard and its suggested use across Britain and Ireland is a preposterous and outlandish proposition, this being a typical effusion of the lunatic fringe. The consequence of this assertion is that they refuse to investigate the subject, essentially because their peers would consider them to be of suspect and unsound mind should they do so.
There also appears to be a tendency within a section of this forum to assume that the stand taken by archaeologists should be accepted as essentially correct, and that all thinking to the contrary must be suspect. Then, there seems to be another section of the forum holding that Thom’s thinking on megalithic metrology simply cannot be wrong.
Neither group appears to ponder on whether Thom could have been right in general terms but wrong in specifics, and that archaeologists rightly rejected his theoretical framework because they were testing a hypothesis that had been inadequately developed and presented. That is to say, the megalithic yard potentially exists, but not in the way Thom argued it - with the result that archaeologists may have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
I’ve suggested that the megalithic yard may appear on stone circle diameters as a result of a unit present on circumferences, specifically that a multiple of sixteen such units generates one megalithic yard on the diameter - that is, 16 x 6.4 inches (the suggested length of the unit) divided by pi equals one megalithic yard of 2.72 feet. The fact that perimeters are not all multiples of 16 units helps explain why the megalithic yard doesn’t appear on all diameters yet why statistical analysis indicates its presence. It’s there, but not always obviously so.
However, this particular hypothesis is automatically rejected by archaeologists without review, consideration or investigation because they’ve declared against the megalithic yard in the past - and anyone considering that they could have been mistaken is classed as lunatic.
I’ve surveyed some 300 megalithic monuments and am preparing to publish the results of my analysis. I find that about one-third have perimeters that are rationally divided - all the gaps are multiples of the same number of degrees. That is to say that stone circles appear to have a whole number of units on the perimeter which is rationally divided often with stones placed at select points such that the gaps end up being recognisable fractions of a revolution. The same seems to apply to the axis.
The circumferences are frequently divided into 32, 48 and 60 equal parts such that the gaps are multiples of 11.25, 7.5 and 6 degrees. Gaps of 22.5, 30, 36, 37.5 and 45 degrees are common. This is not to say that the builders were using degrees, but with a circle having a circumference of 360 units the division tends to stare one in the face.
I’ve tried to get papers published here by Graham in the Articles section, but he obviously doesn’t want to know! So, I’ve added a page to my website in the hope that the hypothesis might reach a wider audience and may be seen by fringe researchers - who are the only people who might be prepared to consider it and assess its implications.
Were the megalith builders numerate geometers intellectually on a par with Ancient Egypt at the time despite their being nasty, brutish and short and squatting and squitting in the mud?
An Alternative Route to the Megalithic Yard
Archaeologists just don’t want to know, and people wishing to be seen as thinking in the right manner automatically follow suit. Wikipedia is scathing about the megalithic yard, and Jason Colavito, for example, has declared emphatically against it, presumably because this is seen to be the right thing for intelligent people to do. Shades of the emperor’s new clothes?
Archaeologists clearly consider that any hypothesis challenging their societal model of the megalithic age can be rejected unseen, presumably because this is their perception of the nature and working of the philosophy of science - assuredly, a credit and shining monument to ontology and epistemology!
There also appears to be a tendency within a section of this forum to assume that the stand taken by archaeologists should be accepted as essentially correct, and that all thinking to the contrary must be suspect. Then, there seems to be another section of the forum holding that Thom’s thinking on megalithic metrology simply cannot be wrong.
Neither group appears to ponder on whether Thom could have been right in general terms but wrong in specifics, and that archaeologists rightly rejected his theoretical framework because they were testing a hypothesis that had been inadequately developed and presented. That is to say, the megalithic yard potentially exists, but not in the way Thom argued it - with the result that archaeologists may have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
I’ve suggested that the megalithic yard may appear on stone circle diameters as a result of a unit present on circumferences, specifically that a multiple of sixteen such units generates one megalithic yard on the diameter - that is, 16 x 6.4 inches (the suggested length of the unit) divided by pi equals one megalithic yard of 2.72 feet. The fact that perimeters are not all multiples of 16 units helps explain why the megalithic yard doesn’t appear on all diameters yet why statistical analysis indicates its presence. It’s there, but not always obviously so.
However, this particular hypothesis is automatically rejected by archaeologists without review, consideration or investigation because they’ve declared against the megalithic yard in the past - and anyone considering that they could have been mistaken is classed as lunatic.
I’ve surveyed some 300 megalithic monuments and am preparing to publish the results of my analysis. I find that about one-third have perimeters that are rationally divided - all the gaps are multiples of the same number of degrees. That is to say that stone circles appear to have a whole number of units on the perimeter which is rationally divided often with stones placed at select points such that the gaps end up being recognisable fractions of a revolution. The same seems to apply to the axis.
The circumferences are frequently divided into 32, 48 and 60 equal parts such that the gaps are multiples of 11.25, 7.5 and 6 degrees. Gaps of 22.5, 30, 36, 37.5 and 45 degrees are common. This is not to say that the builders were using degrees, but with a circle having a circumference of 360 units the division tends to stare one in the face.
I’ve tried to get papers published here by Graham in the Articles section, but he obviously doesn’t want to know! So, I’ve added a page to my website in the hope that the hypothesis might reach a wider audience and may be seen by fringe researchers - who are the only people who might be prepared to consider it and assess its implications.
Were the megalith builders numerate geometers intellectually on a par with Ancient Egypt at the time despite their being nasty, brutish and short and squatting and squitting in the mud?
An Alternative Route to the Megalithic Yard
Archaeologists just don’t want to know, and people wishing to be seen as thinking in the right manner automatically follow suit. Wikipedia is scathing about the megalithic yard, and Jason Colavito, for example, has declared emphatically against it, presumably because this is seen to be the right thing for intelligent people to do. Shades of the emperor’s new clothes?
Archaeologists clearly consider that any hypothesis challenging their societal model of the megalithic age can be rejected unseen, presumably because this is their perception of the nature and working of the philosophy of science - assuredly, a credit and shining monument to ontology and epistemology!