Featured: Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Random Image


Sasgon valley

From Carnac to Callanish: Prehistoric Stone Rows, Aubrey Burl

From Carnac to Callanish: Prehistoric Stone Rows, Aubrey Burl

Who's Online

There are currently, 357 guests and 1 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

Moderated by : davidmorgan , Andy B , Klingon , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain

The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >> Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> Megalithic yard in Ireland
New  Reply
Page 1 of 2 ( 1 | 2 )
AuthorMegalithic yard in Ireland
Andy B



Joined:
13-02-2001


Messages: 12276
from Surrey, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 24-04-2014 at 16:57   
Brian writes: Thanks for sending the book Alexander Thom: Cracking the Stone Age Code (*). Do you know whether any researchers have been checking out the ancient monuments in Ireland for evidence of the megalithic yard being used as a unit of measurement?

As where I live is not far from the Aran Islands, I am tempted to go and check out the seven ancient stone forts that are mysteriously situated there. But it seems likely that other researchers have already done this?
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=6333395

I am also curious to know whether the dimensions of the ancient stone architecture in Cuzco, Peru, conform to Thom's hypothesis?
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/search.php?query=Cuzco

Cheers,
Brian Ragbourn

[AB Note: Not quite the same thing but I remember reading of a researcher looking at alignment of sites in Ireland at the moment but I forget what the link was!]

(*) Copies of Alexander Thom: Cracking the Stone Age Code by Robin Heath are available from The Portal for £19.99 post free to the UK or £14.99 to society members. It's not our shop yet but contact sales@megalithic.co.uk if you would like one - Paypal accepted.

PS George need not reply to this to say that the megalithic yard is cobblers

[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2014-04-24 17:05 ]




 Profile  Email   Reply
ainsloch



Joined:
04-08-2012


Messages: 177
from Belfast

OFF-Line

 Posted 24-04-2014 at 19:56   
I ordered a copy of this book and thought it a "cracking" good read... good value too considering sellers on Amazon were looking ridiculous prices for second hand copies last time I looked.

As for anyone checking sites for the MY in Ireland I can't recall hearing of that before, except for Thom's analysis of Newgrange. I have it noted from somewhere that Thom found that the south eastern section of Newgrange mound is defined by half of a 104 by 72 MY ellipse, with the other side section defined by arcs of circles centered on the corners of two opposing 10-24-26 MY right angle triangles (5-12-13 Pythagorean triangles).




 Profile   Reply
tiompan



Joined:
09-01-2005


Messages: 3186
OFF-Line

 Posted 24-04-2014 at 23:32   
“PS George need not reply to this to say that the megalithic yard is cobblers”

Is that pre-emptive censorship of dissent ? , or just an acceptance of the fact .
Saying anything is cobblers without explaining why is not very helpful .
George





 Profile   Reply
Runemage



Joined:
15-07-2005


Messages: 3917
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-04-2014 at 01:54   
Do you know whether any researchers have been checking out the ancient monuments in Ireland for evidence of the megalithic yard being used as a unit of measurement?

Hopefully some of our other members in different areas of Ireland will see this and also chip in if they know of anything.

AB Note: Not quite the same thing but I remember reading of a researcher looking at alignment of sites in Ireland at the moment but I forget what the link was!]
Is it Bawn79's archaeoastronomy project you're thinking of Andy?
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=5980&forum=1&start=0

If anyone fancies making their own Megalithic Yard Measure, there's a how-to here, http://www.robertlomas.com/megyard/

Rune




 Profile   Reply
hewpop



Joined:
29-10-2005


Messages: 96
from Devon

OFF-Line

 Posted 26-04-2014 at 08:39   
Megalithic Yard.

Draw an equilateral triangle with sides of 1 foot. ( Imperial measure, 12 inches.), Use the perpendicular height as the diameter of a circle.

The circumference when drawn will be 2.720688046... ft. ( Pi * sqrt(3) /2 ).

Much easier, and is the basis for the geometry of Stonehenge and its connection to the Gt, Pyramid.

hewpop.





 Profile  Email   Reply
ainsloch



Joined:
04-08-2012


Messages: 177
from Belfast

OFF-Line

 Posted 06-05-2014 at 15:28   
I happen to be reading a book called Archaeoastronomy in the Old World by Heggie, and it contains an analysis of 65 stone circle sites (including passage tomb kerb circles) in Ireland, with a ratio of 14:35:10:6 for the regions Carrowmore, Cork-Kerry, Wicklow-Kildare and the Boyne Valley. This study was done by Patrick & Wallace and is named Stone Circle Geometries. On page 262 the authors state that:

"There can be little doubt that a "megalithic yard" was never used to set out the Irish sites. Thom's flattened circle geometric design is a sensible interpretation of the stone positions but certainly fits no better and often much worse than the fourier circles."

They then conclude with:

"Professor Thom's geometric designs and megalithic yard are,
in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence
available. His hypothesis is not competitive for the Irish sites tested
herein and we feel this must intimate a similar result for the British
sites once they are evaluated by the technique developed here."




 Profile   Reply
Andy B



Joined:
13-02-2001


Messages: 12276
from Surrey, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 09-05-2014 at 00:08   
Brian says: Some valuable info eventually popped up on your forum. I have consequently just ordered myself a copy of Heggie's book. I tried to express my thanks to the contributor on your forum but as I didn't have a password it didn't register. Am still game for a trip to the Aran Islands.
Muchus gracius,
Brian





 Profile  Email   Reply
andyates



Joined:
25-11-2022


Messages: 28
from Howick, South Africa

OFF-Line

 Posted 28-11-2022 at 07:23   
Hewpop's observation that ( Pi * sqrt(3) /2 ) feet = 2.720688046... ft. which is a megalithic yard is very neat, but it does presuppose that you have a well defined imperial foot to start with.




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 28-11-2022 at 16:52   
Hi Andy. Your observation is quite right. And there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that a 12" foot was a very ancient measurement. See John Neal et al.

Worth also pointing out that the Harris and Stockdale Megalithic Foot of 14.142 inches ( a proposed rediscovery of a prehistoric unit of measurement) can also be found by using the the 12" foot.

Draw a 10" square and the diagonals are 14.142" long. Or to see it another way the HSMF of 14.142" is the square root of 2 X 10 inches.

Much more information available in our book, 'A New Dimension to Ancient Measures ' available from the Megalithic Portal bookshop.




 Profile   Reply
Geoff_B



Joined:
05-08-2021


Messages: 135
from West Midlands, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 29-11-2022 at 22:32   
Do you know whether any researchers have been checking out the ancient monuments in Ireland for evidence of the megalithic yard being used as a unit of measurement?

I’ve certainly done so, but not in the way archaeologists have approached the matter. My analysis pertained to personal surveys of multiple-stone and five-stone circles predominantly in County Cork and County Kerry, but did include Newgrange and Grange B (The Great Circle, Lios). The analysis covered 69 stone circles. I also looked at some Irish four-stone circles.

My conclusion is that assuming a circumferential unit and the rational distribution of orthostats on perimeters the Megalithic Yard could well be present in Ireland in the same way that it would seem to be present in Scotland, England and Wales.





 Profile   Reply
Geoff_B



Joined:
05-08-2021


Messages: 135
from West Midlands, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 06-12-2022 at 23:46   
My recollection of the paper by Patrick and Wallace (Stone Circle Geometries: An Information Theory Approach) is that its focus is on Thom’s geometrical designs and the impact of ‘best fit’ on choice of diameter (or radius).

The paper mentions the Megalithic Yard, but I don’t recall there being a quantal analysis or any name list of the sites referenced. I do recall that 35 sites in Cork/Kerry were noted as having been surveyed, but I think only Kenmare was illustrated.

As to the Carrowmore sites, I must say I’ve never heard of any of them and, from the few plans provided, I can appreciate their applicability to geometrical analysis but don’t feel that I would ever have considered them usable for my particular mode of MY analysis.

I honestly can't recall having seen in their paper any basis, analysis or justification for declaring that the Megalithic Yard was never used to set out Irish sites.





 Profile   Reply
ESgt



Joined:
19-10-2010


Messages: 318
from Derbys, Notts, Leics

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-12-2022 at 02:51   
hewpop "Draw an equilateral triangle with sides of 1 foot. ( Imperial measure, 12 inches.), Use the perpendicular height as the diameter of a circle. The circumference when drawn will be 2.720688046... ft. ( Pi * sqrt(3) /2 )."

Not quite.
(o.1) * %: 3%4 NB. Pi times the square root of three quarters of a foot.
2.720699046 NB, Or your way ~
-: (o.1) * %:3 NB. Half of Pi times the square root of three.
2.720699046 NB. JSoftware







[ This message was edited by: ESgt on 2022-12-10 03:13 ]




 Profile   Reply
andyates



Joined:
25-11-2022


Messages: 28
from Howick, South Africa

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-12-2022 at 04:25   
With reference to Geoff Bath's message concerning his measurements of sites in Ireland:
I’ve certainly done so, but not in the way archaeologists have approached the matter. My analysis pertained to personal surveys of multiple-stone and five-stone circles predominantly in County Cork and County Kerry, but did include Newgrange and Grange B (The Great Circle, Lios). The analysis covered 69 stone circles. I also looked at some Irish four-stone circles.

I studied his paper (published on Researchgate) and ran a computer analysis of his data to test for the presence of an underlying common site dimension. I have summarized my findings at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NfEpRQ1KiwaVGoh2FFcojpzpOH8ebXTA/view?


[ This message was edited by: andyates on 2022-12-10 20:18 ]




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 12-12-2022 at 20:08   
Hi Eric (ESgt), a bit of info in terms of the sqrt3 issue and your formula, as worded.

Firstly, I thought that Hewpop's post just had a bit of a typo where instead of two "9's" he accidentally typed the two "8's" in the 2.720688046 ft. Nevertheless there is a difference between his procedure and yours.

Hewpop's description actually allows you to get an answer both in terms of "number" or "measure", in that the foot can be taken as 1 or 12(i.e. in inches). An equilateral triangle has angles of 60-degrees and to find the height using tangents is tan60*0.5 (since we are talking a right-angled triangle with the calculation needing half the base, (hence 0.5) In fact tan60 is actually sqrt3, which is why it comes into the various formulas.

So tan60*0.5 = 0.0866025403 (which again is cos30 if one wants to argue the 30 of the Sarsens). Then multiplied by Pi you get directly the 2.720699046.

Using inches, it becomes tan60*6 = 10.39230485 (which is the side length of the equilateral triangle) Then multiplied by Pi the answer is the MY in inches, i.e. 32.64838856 (which divided by 12 returns the MY in feet as 2.720699046).

However, using your description, "Pi times the square root of three quarters of a foot" the calculation only works directly if you use 0.75, hence

sqrt of 3/4 of a foot, as 0.75, returns 0.866025403, then multiplied by Pi you get your 2.720699046.

But if you use 9 (inches) as your 3/4 of the foot, then it's sqrt is 3 and multiplied by Pi the answer is 9.424777961. To get your MY of 2.720699046, you then have to divide by sqrt3*2. So it's an extra step, or two steps, depending on how you look at it!

From the above you can see that there are several routes to the MY depending on how you start, e.g. with the triangle, in which case it involves angles, i.e. tangents, or just directly using Pi * sqrt(3) /2 as Hewpop illustrated.

When you've been analysing the metrology of megalithic monuments using the various mathematical functions and constants as long as I have, you get to spot all these nuances almost immediately, as I did with Cameron's recent "musical" approach. How the ancients did their calculations...well, speculation abounds!

Cheers



[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2022-12-12 20:17 ]




 Profile   Reply
TheDruid-3X3



Joined:
12-04-2020


Messages: 765
from Vancouver, BC

OFF-Line

 Posted 22-01-2023 at 04:26   
Kai Hofmann wrote:
Quote:
Although over-restored




How can you have something that is 'Over-Restored'?


3X3





 Profile  Email   Reply
Runemage



Joined:
15-07-2005


Messages: 3917
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 22-01-2023 at 12:56   
Quote:
How can you have something that is 'Over-Restored'?



Have a look at the controversy surrounding the restoration of the façade at Newgrange, that's a prime example.




 Profile   Reply
Martin_L



Joined:
04-10-2007


Messages: 1317
from ᛭

OFF-Line

 Posted 22-01-2023 at 16:21   
@Runemage: The quote the Druid posted above is not even from this topic. Kai Hofman made no post here. The Druid seems confused. ^^




 Profile  Email   Reply
sem



Joined:
12-11-2003


Messages: 2806
from Bridgend,S.Wales

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-01-2023 at 01:31   
Martin
You seem to have omitted a few words in your last post.
'Very', 'extremely' or, in what seems to be the current trend in reconstruction (in this case of language) 'really, really,' may fit the bill. Which do you suggest?
I'd say you have a double plus good point here.







 Profile   Reply
Martin_L



Joined:
04-10-2007


Messages: 1317
from ᛭

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-01-2023 at 10:39   
Simon, thanks and well yes 'double plus' sounds almost excellent. I believe my point was basically to indirectly suggest the removal/moving of the off-topic post above. I would have done so myself, but i once asked Andy to remove my abilities to moderate the Forum as i felt i should rather avoid the Forae as best as possible. Really. ^^




 Profile  Email   Reply
Geoff_B



Joined:
05-08-2021


Messages: 135
from West Midlands, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 06-02-2023 at 12:06   
It seems to me that this thread is unlikely to go anywhere, probably because some archaeologists have declared that the Megalithic Yard was definitely not used as a unit of measure in Ireland.

However, I’d like to make some observations concerning the stone circle Grange B, Limerick, which was excavated in 1939. This is a circle of near-contiguous stones set against the inside of an embankment. A post pipe was found at the exact centre.

The excavation report shows 113 earth-fast stones which was the count I made at my first visit and subsequent survey. The report also shows that there are four types of stone present: 1 of Basalt, 2 of Sandstone, 23 Volcanic Breccia and 87 Limestone. I’ve wondered whether this should have been 22 Volcanic Breccia and 88 Limestone in view of the site’s apparent design featuring a potential multiple of 11.

The diameter from my survey is 45.6m which you’ll appreciate is 55 Megalithic Yards, perhaps the first hint of a multiple of 11 on the circumference. If you’re aware of my fixation on stone circle perimeters you’ll probably guess that I took the trouble to determine whether there might be rational division and pattern to the layout of the most significant stones (Burl identifies a dozen).

Very obvious at first sight, the circle has a well defined entrance passageway flanked by large stones at some 30+ degrees north of east with a pair of large stones diametrically opposite forming an axis, and a truly massive stone at about 60+ degrees north of east.

By survey, it can be appreciated that the entrance lies at one-eleventh of a revolution north of east while the massive block of stone lies at two-elevenths north of east. All three stones defining these points are Volcanic Breccia. There is also a stone of Breccia placed at due east and another at due south with yet another at one-eleventh of a revolution east of this.

One of the two stones of Sandstone lies at true northwest with the other positioned at one-eleventh of a revolution to the south of it. If one proceeds counter-clockwise in elevenths from due east you’ll find stones of Breccia at, or upon, one-eleventh, two-elevenths, four-elevenths, five-elevenths, six-elevenths, seven-elevenths, eight-elevenths and eleven-elevenths (east). The single stone of Basalt is at nine-elevenths, and is due south of the massive block of Breccia at two-elevenths, and there’s a stone of Limestone at ten-elevenths pairing off about the axis with another stone of Limestone at three-elevenths.

As a result of such positioning and division, the pair of stones opposite the entrance - one of Breccia and one of Limestone - will clearly result in the circle being divided into 22 equal parts, but the placing of the two stones of Sandstone might imply that the circle is divided into eighty-eight equal parts as suggested in the plans below.

The Great Circle Grange B (Lios), Limerick

It might be appreciated that the lengths of the arcs from the point diametrically opposite the entrance to the two stones of Limestone positioned at 3/11ths and 10/11ths are equal in length to the diameter (55MY) should pi be taken to be 22/7.

There are a number of other circles at which the gaps between arcs of stones on the circumference sum to the diameter in the same way. Clearly, this can only happen at circles where the stones on the circumference can be seen to divide it into a multiple of 22 equal parts (e.g. Machrie Moor V Outer, Druidtemple, Ringmoor Down and possibly Elva Plain and Drannandow).

It may be noted that of the 23 stones of Breccia half have been accounted for above plus the single stone of Basalt and the two of Sandstone. Seven of the ten largest stones on the site are Breccia. Thus, Breccia could be highly significant, as only three of the 87 stones of Limestone have so far been referenced.

It’s therefore my feeling that the eighteen stones mentioned above define the basic layout of the circle in eighty-eight equal divisions.

Should this be so, the circle could be added to the table previously used to calculate the potential for a common circumferential unit based on equally-divided circles in Scotland and England - and now to include Ireland.

Determination of a Common Circumferential Unit: England, Scotland and Ireland.

Thus, it can be seen that there are potentially six equally-spaced circles located at major ritual centres in Scotland, England and Ireland having the same calculated circumferential unit of 325.7mm, being one-eighth of a Megalithic Yard multiplied by pi, and note that the unit common to all the radii is one-quarter of a Megalithic Yard not the yard itself.

Ireland also has a distinctive class of five-stone circles having diameters from about 2.5m to some 4.2m (the latter being five Megalithic Yards) these diameters perhaps being better appreciated as measured in quarters of a Megalithic Yard as a consequence of how the stones are distributed about their circumferences.

I'm finding the majority of stone circle circumferences to be a multiple of four perimetric units as a consequence of rational distribution (thus, a base of one unit in each quadrant), which automatically means that the diameters would be a multiple of one-quarter of a Megalithic Yard.

Thus, the length of the diameter could be being driven by the layout and requirements of the perimeter not the other way round - and this seems to apply to Ireland in exactly the same way as in England, Scotland and Wales.

It’s still my view that the key to the Megalithic Yard may well lie in how the stones on the perimeters were positioned with respect to each other, the potential for which can be assessed simply by measuring the angles represented by the gaps and then comparing them.

Obviously, it’s not possible to determine a common unit for a single diameter, but it may well be possible to find a unit that’s common to all the gaps on the perimeter of any fairly well defined stone circle should there be one.

This applies to Ireland just as much as anywhere else.







 Profile   Reply
Go to Page: 1 | 2
New  Reply
Jump To

Sponsors