Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
I here published an analysis of stone circle widths in 2012, showing evidence that they had had their radii measured in integer values of Megalithic Yards. Andrew Yates has now replicated my analysis of those Thom stone circle diameters, using the same method as me, but slightly more computerised.
Mine - www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146413596
His - www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=9078&forum=4 => 2.720 feet optimal
and -
drive.google.com/file/d/1M8LBBBAE3GUtaWImRb4peNwBeoUN5_bN/view
He has found the exact same result as me - a clear minimum in 'residuals' of the diameters at 2.72 feet.
The basic principle we have both used, is: if integer values of a yardstick had been used in measuring out circle radii, then taking the nearest whole-number value of that yardstick to the observed diameter, and subtracting them, will give a difference or residual that will be least, it will be on average smaller, than using any other length-measurement. The total sum of those residuals is plotted as a function of the unit of length.
He does not mention my work, but never mind. He used the same method and reached the same conclusion, without being aware of my study on your website!
He just used a slightly larger database, of - he said - 200 diameters.
Thom's MY has come under much criticism and scorn. For example, the book by the late John Neal Ancient Metrology dismissed it entirely. It has now been vindicated and validated by the method I used in 2012, now repeated by Andrew in 2022.
We could do with more discussion of which circle-diameters are to be included. All analyses published seem to be based upon measurments made by the Thoms, Andrew's paper hardly explained how he obtained his 200 diameters, merely alluding to ‘two complementary papers published in 1955 and 1962 by Professor Alexander Thom and saying that his method was ‘applied to all 200 sites.’
However, in the forum he explained, “The data that I used was extracted from Thom's 1955 paper which contained 29 sites from England (Table 2), 25 sites from Scotland (Table 3) and 35 "Other" sites (Table 14). I also extracted data from his 1962 paper which contained 43 new sites from England and Wales (Table 1) and 51 new sites from Scotland (Table 2). Thus my database represented 183 sites in total from all over the UK.”
OK, so he used 183 sites. He did not use the obvious data-source viz the 1980 publication by the two Thoms edited by Burl, 'Megalithic Rings, Plans and Data for 229 Monuments in Britain.' I have used the judicious selection of those Thom sites published in: Barnatt & Moire, 'Stone circles & Meg. Maths', Proc Prehistoric. Soc., 50, 1984, 197-216. They gave in all 267 diameter measurements, where 'date-sets not deriving from well-preserved stone circles are removed.' (Each monument may have several diameter measurements.)
I will post up an improved graph if i can figure out how to do that. I tested the 2.5 MY interval (6.8 feet) which Thom called a 'rod', but I found no sign of any minimum there, likewise the 1.17 which is being alluded to as the HSMF 'Harris-Stockton Megalithic Foot' and it also showed no minimum. Likewise, if one inspects the remarkable graph presented by Andrew Yates, that shows no minima at these points: it clearly has one and only one minimum, at 2.72 feet! A shame Thom didn't get to see this graph ...
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road