Dare I suggest that perhaps Thom and archaeologists may have missed something significant about stone circles that’s actually fairly easy to spot?
I’ve surveyed more than 300 circles over the past 50 years and my analysis strongly suggests that, contrary to the declarations of some archaeologists, orthostats appear not to be haphazardly placed on stone circle perimeters.
I refer to this as rational distribution. If you determine a circle of ‘best’ fit and measure the angles represented by the gaps you’ll invariably find that these are all multiples of a given number of degrees. That is to say, assuming the gaps to be a whole number of some unit of measure, if they’re multiples of 6 degrees then the perimeter is divided into a multiple of 60 units, if 7.5 degrees a multiple of 48 and if 5 degrees a multiple of 72.
Based on a handful of equally-spaced circles it’s possible to deduce the size of a common unit even given a very slight difference in the length of unit used at the sites, the circles being:
Stenness, North of Scotland (on a base of 300 units: 12 x 25) - 37.5MY
Cullerlie, East of Scotland (96 units: 8 x 12) - 12MY
Balbirnie, East of Scotland (on a base of 140 units: 10 x 14) - 17.5MY
Machrie Moor V Inner, West of Scotland (112 units: 8 x 14) - 14MY
Aubrey Ring, South of England (840 units: 56 x 15) - 105MY
The computed unit common to all these circumferences turns out to cluster around 325.5mm which is one-eighth of a Megalithic Yard (five Megalithic Inches) multiplied by pi. Thus, the Megalithic Yard may well appear on diameters as a mathematical consequence of a unit on the circumference, and this unit may well pertain to Iron Age measures (12.8 inches in Britain and Ireland and 13.2 inches in Germany).
On the basis of detailed analysis of some 250 reasonably defined circles, it appears that the perimetric unit is half the above length and, thus, the Megalithic Yard would be divided into 16 sub-units. Furthermore, the computed Megalithic Yard would vary by 3% either side of a mean between 829mm and 830mm (829.6mm on my surveys with a mode of 830mm and a standard deviation of 10mm).
Thus, the Megalithic Yard, assuming it existed as a unit of measure, would appear to be closer to 2.723 feet than to 2.72 feet. It does seem it may exist at Stonehenge where the Sarsen Circle would have an inner lintel circumference of 30 x 60 diametric units (112.5 MY) and an outer circumference of 30 x 64 diametric units (120 MY).
It should be possible to appreciate such rational distribution from analysing most published stone circle surveys. Of course, we can’t say exactly what length any diameter was intended to be, but for excavated circles this should be fairly accurate.
I’m sure there’ll be howls of protest at such sacrilege suggesting that Thom may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but I should note that I’m within a week of publishing a book with stylised plans and analysis from personal surveys of some 300 rings across Britain and Ireland analysed as above. Hopefully, this may go some way to explain why the Megalithic Yard emerges from Thom’s data. It’s present because there appears to be a common unit on perimeters the length of which is related to MY by pi and can vary by as much as 3%. Obviously, this unit is not the Megalithic Rod.
Furthermore, most diameters turn out to be a multiple of one-quarter of a Megalithic Yard determined, or dictated, by the rational division of the circumference, which is why Thom’s diameters are not all in whole numbers of MY.
This would suggest that archaeologists may have been too hasty in their dismissal of the unit, though Heaven Forbid that anyone should suggest here that archaeologists could get things wrong or that the lunatic fringe may have got something right!
I’ve surveyed more than 300 circles over the past 50 years and my analysis strongly suggests that, contrary to the declarations of some archaeologists, orthostats appear not to be haphazardly placed on stone circle perimeters.
I refer to this as rational distribution. If you determine a circle of ‘best’ fit and measure the angles represented by the gaps you’ll invariably find that these are all multiples of a given number of degrees. That is to say, assuming the gaps to be a whole number of some unit of measure, if they’re multiples of 6 degrees then the perimeter is divided into a multiple of 60 units, if 7.5 degrees a multiple of 48 and if 5 degrees a multiple of 72.
Based on a handful of equally-spaced circles it’s possible to deduce the size of a common unit even given a very slight difference in the length of unit used at the sites, the circles being:
Stenness, North of Scotland (on a base of 300 units: 12 x 25) - 37.5MY
Cullerlie, East of Scotland (96 units: 8 x 12) - 12MY
Balbirnie, East of Scotland (on a base of 140 units: 10 x 14) - 17.5MY
Machrie Moor V Inner, West of Scotland (112 units: 8 x 14) - 14MY
Aubrey Ring, South of England (840 units: 56 x 15) - 105MY
The computed unit common to all these circumferences turns out to cluster around 325.5mm which is one-eighth of a Megalithic Yard (five Megalithic Inches) multiplied by pi. Thus, the Megalithic Yard may well appear on diameters as a mathematical consequence of a unit on the circumference, and this unit may well pertain to Iron Age measures (12.8 inches in Britain and Ireland and 13.2 inches in Germany).
On the basis of detailed analysis of some 250 reasonably defined circles, it appears that the perimetric unit is half the above length and, thus, the Megalithic Yard would be divided into 16 sub-units. Furthermore, the computed Megalithic Yard would vary by 3% either side of a mean between 829mm and 830mm (829.6mm on my surveys with a mode of 830mm and a standard deviation of 10mm).
Thus, the Megalithic Yard, assuming it existed as a unit of measure, would appear to be closer to 2.723 feet than to 2.72 feet. It does seem it may exist at Stonehenge where the Sarsen Circle would have an inner lintel circumference of 30 x 60 diametric units (112.5 MY) and an outer circumference of 30 x 64 diametric units (120 MY).
It should be possible to appreciate such rational distribution from analysing most published stone circle surveys. Of course, we can’t say exactly what length any diameter was intended to be, but for excavated circles this should be fairly accurate.
I’m sure there’ll be howls of protest at such sacrilege suggesting that Thom may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but I should note that I’m within a week of publishing a book with stylised plans and analysis from personal surveys of some 300 rings across Britain and Ireland analysed as above. Hopefully, this may go some way to explain why the Megalithic Yard emerges from Thom’s data. It’s present because there appears to be a common unit on perimeters the length of which is related to MY by pi and can vary by as much as 3%. Obviously, this unit is not the Megalithic Rod.
Furthermore, most diameters turn out to be a multiple of one-quarter of a Megalithic Yard determined, or dictated, by the rational division of the circumference, which is why Thom’s diameters are not all in whole numbers of MY.
This would suggest that archaeologists may have been too hasty in their dismissal of the unit, though Heaven Forbid that anyone should suggest here that archaeologists could get things wrong or that the lunatic fringe may have got something right!