Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
I apologize for my initial rather negative attitude. Although shamefully I have not read the book I am beginning to deduce that it is one of the better books. I doubt whether my article offer was appropriate but I wanted to elaborate. I withdraw it.
Although I doubt whether the Roman Foot is a true megalithic measure I have overlooked the fact that it can be used to describe valid megalithic relationships. This stems from the fact that a French Aune equals 4 Roman feet. Therefore a Roman Foot could have existed as a quarter of an aune, this is 15 nails on the assumption that the Aune is an ell of 60 nails. Although I could argue that the divisions are different I am beginning to split hairs on the basis that I am almost converging to the same thing.
I think I know where the author is coming from. 7 Roman feet multiplied by 4 equals 7 aunes which equals 10 MY. This almost stares at you in the relationships that I have given. It is also something which I have stated in my own book. I conclude that Anne Macaulay's understanding of Megalithic must be similar to mine but expressed in Roman feet. I apologize for giving the impression that it must be wrong. The principle conveyed here is that 10 MY as a diameter can be substituted for 7 aunes. The circumference is then 22 aunes.
I have got a criticism that I am not keen on the idea of a 7 foot fathom. The Fathom exists in many systems and is 6 feet. Calling a measure of 7 feet a fathom is changing the definitions.
I am happy to elaborate on ideas on a private basis. I wish this to be on an amiable and mutually beneficial basis.
Please remove all the clutter I have created. It allows life to move on.
Tony Benesh
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road