Apologies for things being slow around here again. I much enjoy writing this blog and am always on the lookout for interesting subject material, but lately I’ve gotten a bit into some experimental things that I don’t have quite so much certainty or optimism about as to be eager to post.
Most recently, I’ve been browsing through the database at the Megaltihic Portal. I’ve looked before there at stone ships (ship settings), and at stone circles that occur in less expected places, following leads that soon seemed to overturn the idea that most of the world’s stone circles are in the UK.
This time I’ve been looking again at pyramids in less expected places, as well as having another look at the possibilities concerning a “Long Foot” of 1.056 ft or thereabouts (quite close to the ratio between the Egyptian Remen and the Egyptian Royal Foot), and before that I spent most of a week revisiting the question of the Greek historian Herodotus’ lost Lake Moeris pyramids in Egypt. I had begun to wonder if there were any recent progress on the problem, and stumbled over Stijn van den Hoven’s paper that proposes that the pyramids mentioned by Herodotus are in fact the pedestals of Biahmu.
I cannot quite bring myself to accept this proposition yet although I am mindful of Petrie himself also, if perhaps somewhat inexplicably, having declared the same thing. Although Herodotus’ measures for the two pyramids in Lake Moeris must most likely be exaggerated, there are still a number of probably unanswered questions about whether they could be the Pedestals of Biahmu, or whether the Biahmu structures might simply be a pair of much more humble constructs with related adornments to the two pyramids that Herodotus describes.
I’ve done a fair amount of pouring over Petrie’s data for the East pedestal, a particular challenge because of what appear to be several curious inconsistencies in Petrie’s data.
No matter how many times I seem to be able to find a slender golden thread running through the last two or three things I worked on, I try not to expect it lest I help it to happen when it shouldn’t. I certainly wasn’t expecting it here, but the possible discovery of at least one such thread linking several recent inquires is why I think there’s an occasion to post after all.
Diagram of the East Pedestal of Biahmu after WMF Petrie, “Hawara, Biahmu and Arsinoe“. Thanks to Jim Alison for pointing out that the 125 Indus Feet labelled at top is no doubt more sensibly interpreted as 80 Royal Cubits (especially since non-standard Indus Feet would have been required).
The main reasons I prepared the diagram are because I wanted to show the possible appearance of metrological unit values in modern Imperial feet as ratios between parts of a structure, yet again, and that one of them, 1650 / 1400 = 1.178571429, would appear to be the Harris Stockdale Megalithic Foot.
My interest in the lost Lake Moeris Pyramids was re-kindled by rumblings about ground-penetrating imaging that supports Herodotus’ claims of the fabled and fantastic lost Egyptian Labyrinth being adjacent to the pyramid of Amenemhet III at Hawara, and sustained even through the difficulties with Petrie’s Biahmu data because eventually the Biahmu data seems to produce some unusual numbers that are related to those associated with my previous efforts at interpreting the Hawara pyramid.
Furthermore, these unusual numbers are also related to those seen in Petrie’s data for the Qasr el-Sagha temple, which according to Keith Hamilton’s paper is located not far north of the north shore of what’s left of Lake Moeris, in the form of the present day Birket Qarun.
What does all this look like mathematically? Well, here is Petrie’s reconstruction of one of the colossi atop the Biahmu pedestals with Petrie’s data (such as it, in too round of numbers of feet for anyone’s own good), labelled onto it.
If I take the equation 35 / 21 = 1.6666666666 and adapt it to the 2.107038746 ft Palestinian Cubit,
21.07038746 x 1.666666666 = 35.11730793 as the height of the statue. This is equal to twice the perimeter of the missing Great Pyramid apex section / 10^n.
Curiously, 5 / 35.11730793 = 1.423799344 = 1 / 7.023461587
Because 1 / 60 = 1.666666666 / 100, if we look at the ratio between Petrie’s “60 feet” total height for pedestal and statue, projective though it is, we get the same thing from the opposite direction: 60 / (10 Palestinian Cubits = 21.07038476) = 2.847598689 = 1.423799344 x 2 .
Although not previously posted, based on Petrie’s data, 7.023461565 has already already suggested to be the perimeter / height ratio of the Hawara pyramid.
I’ve cited 7.023461565 and its reciprocal 1.423799344 previously as an ancient Egyptian Wonder Numbers, and currently I’m finding it very hard to ignore these unusual numbers turning in three of three different structures in the Faiyum Oasis, even though Petrie’s height measures for Biahmu are otherwise somewhat questionable.
There may be other unusual numbers as well that could be common to sites in the Faiyum Oasis.
To make a long story somewhat shorter, as part of a closer look at pyramids in less common places, I managed to end up having another look at one of the South Korean pyramids. We’ve taken a look at several of them before here.
I’d actually intended another look at the legendary Glastonbury Pyramids – Wikipedia: “Both Giraldus and Ralph say that the spot lay in between two pyramids in the abbey. Willian of Malmesbury does not refer to Arthur’s tomb but elaborates on the pyramids of varying height, upon which were statues with inscriptions…” but the Asian pyramids are quite good at catching my attention, and as I began to revisit that subject, realized that the Asian pyramids in question may be linked by the same slender golden thread that may link the sites of the Faiyum together as well.
The discovery in question is that a certain number, the often mentioned “Real Mayan Annoyance”, may be part of the proceedings with the Asian pyramids, along with an apparent modest wealth of Lunar references that they seem to contain.
RMA / (1 / 24) = Faiyum Wonder Number as 7.023461575 rather than 1 / 7.023451575 = 1.423799344 / 10
RMA x (1 / 24) = 1.219350968 = 360 / 29.52390325 / 10
The (1 /24) actually seems to be built into the Andong pyramid data that I have. I still don’t know the provenance of that data, but normally if someone goes to the trouble of giving measures to the centimeter, it seems to mean they actually bothered to try to measure so accurately.
Only several hours ago I discovered an additional connection, that may link the golden thread to the ancient Americas and then back to Egypt again, to Giza – which may help to explain what some of these numbers are doing in any of these places to begin with.
Still an unfinished project even after this year’s efforts, one of the more confident interpretive gestures that is possible here is taking 15170.4 in = 1264.2 ft to mean 15170.67702 inches = 1264.23985 ft = 600 Palestinian Cubits of 2.107038476 ft each.
We may wish to note here that 1264.23985 / 180 = 7.02361586, and in fact, we take the 360 degrees of the sacred circle, and thread a small series with together with it, starting with the reciprocal of 1264.23985.
Ready?
(1 / 1264.23985) = 7.90999635 / (10^n)
7.909996357 x 360 = 2.847598689 = 1.423799344 x 2
2.847598689 x 360 = 1.025135528 x 10^n, 1.025135528 being one of the Tikal Wonder Numbers
1.025135528 x 360 = 369.0487900 = (29.52390320 / 8) x 10^n, 29.52390320 being the “Best Value” for the Lunar Month
Suddenly, all of these numbers and the frequency with which we find them, seem to make a little more sense to me.
There is one more recent observation I’d like to share
Unless I’ve made some terrible mistake, all three of these Asian pyramids, in spite of their differences, seem to have a perimeter / diagonal ratio of approximately 2.825389852, the main reciprocal form of the Lunar Year of ~354 days (1 / 2.825389852) x 10^n = 353.9334578.
What are the odds of this being accidental or coincidental?
Happy Holidays!
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 