Earlier today, I posted this the following to the Megalithic Portal. I am not certain what to make of it but I find it very intriguing, and thought I’d share it with readers:
Well, let’s see – I was aspiring to have a look at data for the Mount Pleasant henge and see if I could develop an opinion on which available dataset might behave most like I’m accustomed to, and have ended up sidetracked back to the previous project I was working on.
It’s one I’ve never solved even after years – it’s the proportioning of the spatial distribution of the three main Giza pyramids.
Petrie’s basic descriptions of the NS and EW distances and diagonal distances between the apex of each pyramid expand into a considerably larger group of measurements when the proposed sizes of the pyramids themselves are considered
on pg 68 of the HSMF thread, I wrote
I found this link posted by Andy B about 7 years ago
http://digitaldigging.net/models/mount-pleasant-timber-circle.html
“Wainwright demonstrated that the surviving earthworks were the eroded remnant of an enormous earthen enclosure comprising a massive bank with internal berm and ditch, the total dimensions being 370m east-west by 340m north-south. Geophysical survey suggested 4 entrances in total, located to the west, north, east and south-east. The geophysical survey also turned up an unexpected bonus – a massive and continuous palisade running within and concentric to the henge ditch. Enclosing an area measuring circa 270m east-west by 245m north-south, the palisade trench would have supported a wall of timbers perhaps 6 metres high, yet only two extremely narrow entrances could be found through this enormous timber barrier.“
And pointed out that “their raw ratios are 370 / 340 = 1.088235294, which is very close to 4/10 Megalithic Yard in feet (2.72 x 4 = 10.88), and 270 / 245 = 1.102040816, very close to the Northern / Indus foot. (Some similar aspects seem to be present at Stonehenge, in terms of ratios).”
Peter Harris posted data to the same page of the same thread from
Alex Gibson and John Neal
(for Gibson’s data, Circle B 30m diameter / Circle C 24.6m diameter = 1.219512195 which is the range of the Remen or a similar number that seemingly relates to the Lunar Month and the Meter (3.280839895 x 9 = 29.52755906); 360 / 12.19512195 = 29.52755906).
I was inspired to hunt down my copy of Neal’s book, which also includes figures for average spacing between posts: Circle a 2.10 m, Circle b 1.93 m, and
2.10 m / 1.93 m = 1.088082902, which is the ostentibly same number I retrieved from Wainright’s data as “370 / 340 = 1.088235294”
Because I had interpreted the data attributed to Wainright as a possible pair ofmetrological units in Imperial expressed as ratios, for the benefit of those who might be skeptical of this, I attempted to reflect back to some of the instances where I’ve seen this very same thing working with Egyptian or Megalithic Architecure.
I was going to say that this idea of metrological units as ratios was generally suggestive of the same thing I’d just run into at Giza returning to the question of the layout of its main pyramids, but it’s in fact this reminiscent of Giza, where we also see what could easily be the very same figure, as the ratio between the NS distances from the apices of Mycerinus to Chephren and Chephren to Cheops.
The center group of equations in green attempt to define in the intended figure, and demonstrate some possible relationships between this ratio and some of the surrounding proportions.
I had been developing that as sort of a progress report on how far I think the interpretive metrology may have gotten, and ended up marking it out as an example of seeing metrological unit values in Imperial as ratios. Those are of course numbers that are built into the design regardless of what metrological units are applied and not at the mercy of the wrong choice of unit.
The equations in green at top and bottom of the diagram show what appear to be the Royal Cubit in both Imperial feet and inches built into the blueprint based on Petrie’s data (and eventually Petrie’s data combined with my models. Doing so gives 250 Royal Cubits as the distance from S edge of Cheops’ pyramid to the N edge of Chephren’s.
I wasn’t certain I could fit it onto that diagram, but it happens again
So in total so far for finding the Royal Cubit in Imperial as a ratio at Giza, we have
The equations in green in the middle of the third diagram also attempt to explain what is so special about a value of 4 Megalithic Yards that we might seem to see it repeated thusly from Giza to Mount Pleasant, in relation to some lower square roots.
I could have also added to the diagram that 1.088069890 (4/10 Megalithic Yards) ft / sqrt 5 = almost exactly 1/10 of 40 Remens, which is what I see as the inner sarsen circle circumference, and which is fundamentally the same as Petrie’s assessment, and those of some others.
Here is a slightly more extended view of possible internal relationships in the design
In order to maintain harmony and accuracy in the equations therein that involve sqrt 2, sqrt 2 is substituted for by the particular value I use for the Megalithic Foot, as given in earlier posts in the thread (1.177245771). That’s what seems to be mandated by the interpretive values assigned the other parts involved, and it’s also what see in some of the more direct relationships between ideal units (i.e., Royal Cubit / Remen = 1.718873385 / 1.216733603 = (1.177245771 x 12) / 10).
The data from Neal for the average spacing of the posts provides another interesting ratio: Circle d 2.21 m / Circle d 2.11 m = 1.047393365. The indispensable Pi / 3 = 1.047197551.
I’m not sure I’ve heard of anyone approximating Pi as 663/211 before. I thought for a moment I might have missed it by seeing it previously in reduced form, but 211 is apparently without factors?
So I have no idea what any of that is worth (except that it still doesn’t tell us much about Mount Pleasant henge), but it’s what landed on my plate.
Postscript: I’ll also include this here, which of course contains some of the data that is combined with Petrie’s data (first illustration in this post) to project a more complete model of the Giza Layout
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 