Geoff_B
|
Circumferential Unit Tied to the Megalithic Yard?
Dec 02, 2021, 02:50
|
Having surveyed some 300 stone circles in Britain and Ireland over the past 50 years, and after careful study of the placing of orthostats on the perimeters, it would seem that the stones of virtually all stone circles appear to be rationally distributed.
That is to say, although the stones might appear to be unsystematically positioned, when the angles formed by the gaps are measured from the centre of the circle they all appear to be multiples of a common number of degrees suggesting that the gaps were, in fact, measured using a common unit.
The curious thing is that the likely length of such a common unit can be logically deduced, and it happens to be related to the Megalithic Yard by a factor of pi (that is, MY x pi = 2.6m = 8 circumferential units). Thus, it is possible that a circumferential unit has caused the Megalithic Yard to be introduced into stone circle diameters.
I’ve uploaded a summary of the thesis to academia.edu (extracted from a book on the subject), but also to a series of web pages at:
http://www.gjbath.com/SCDM2/MY00.htm
I’d be interested to know if anyone has surveyed a stone circle and is thus able to check this out independently.
|
GLADMAN
|
Re: Circumferential Unit Tied to the Megalithic Yard?
Dec 04, 2021, 11:15
|
Thanks for this.
I admit when I first read Thom I thought 'yeah, right?'... however, the more I see - in my opinion there really is no credible alternative to fieldwork on location - the more I notice 'coincidences' becoming too frequent to ignore strong suggestions of 'base templates' of some nature having been employed at prehistoric sites.
I'm certainly no surveyor... however you might be interested in the work TMA member Cerrig has undertaken mapping alignments in South Wales?
|
Geoff_B
|
Re: Circumferential Unit Tied to the Megalithic Yard?
Dec 04, 2021, 21:05
|
Thanks for the observations and pointer. I’ve exchanged messages with cerrig on other forums. As Cerrig Duon is something of a specialist subject with Andrew, and I’ve merely plotted it in dismal weather - and, what’s more, it’s on my more speculative list - I’m reluctant to press my thoughts on this ring.
The real prizes are those sites that have been excavated by archaeologists and for which professional surveys have been published. To date, I’ve seen no such survey in an excavation report that fails to provide support for the Rational Distribution Hypothesis.
It’s my feeling that if such a survey is copied it would be possible to check the angles formed by the gaps to determine in how many parts the circle is potentially divided (48, 60, 64, 72 etc.) - or look on my table of sites to see what I think it is (though bear in mind that I include the perceived axis). A template could then be drawn, with protractor, and overlaid on the plan to determine the viability of the fit.
I find that merely contemplating that the gaps might be so measured (and also being able to measure them) adds hugely to the enjoyment of visiting stone circles. It's one thing to be able to perceive a possible intent on a plan, but it's quite another to be able to experience that intent on the ground.
|
