Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
Mr Benesh, what are you trying to say? “I agree that the relationship applies to the Roman foot and not the Greek foot. However neither the Greek or Roman Fathom equals 7 feet.” Please read what Anne Macaulay has proposed – we are talking about a ‘Megalithic’ fathom of seven feet, equal to Thom’s MY ‘Rod’.
If we choose to accept Thom’s MY of 2.722 feet and his ‘Rod’ of 2 ½ times that, then one-seventh of such a Rod, Anne Macaulay has proposed, must be 11.66” – that's simple arithmetic, isn’t it? That is the value which John Greaves measured in Rome and published in 1647 of the Roman foot, isn’t it?
Or, we could take Flinders Petrie’s claim (1880), that his precision measure of the inner circle of the Stonehenge sarsens were a hundred of these ‘feet,’ and that will give us a foot of 11.68".
Or, we could take the site of ‘Mid Clyth’ in Caithness, constructed, Thom found, using the basic interval of 7.743 feet (endorsed by Heggie, 1981): if Anne Macaulay is right, that was eight feet, as would give a foot there used of 11.61 inches.
Its very simple, really.
I'm not accepting your fashionably agnostic view, that 'It is possible to link anything to anything and therein lies the danger' - it appears to me that the measures which have been obtained pertinent to Megalithc Britain, are of sufficient precision that we are rather obliged to link them in the way Anne Macaulay has indicated.
Nick Kollerstrom
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road