Journal of Geomancy vol. 1 no. 4, July 1977

{72}

SOME METROLOGICAL IDEAS

by ROBERT FORREST

In TLH 70, p. 6, Norman Field pointed out that:

1 Megalithic Yard = e feet

where e is the base of Natural Logarithms. 

In his book “The Sphinx and the Megaliths”, p. 124, John Ivimy pointed out that:

1 Megalithic Yard = √5 Remens. 

In “View Over Atlantis”, p. 132, John Michell pointed out that:

1 Square Megalithic Yard = 2½ Square Cubits
90 Square Megalithic Yards = 666 Square Feet. 

The orthodox reactions to these ‘relationships’ would probably be apoplectic seizure to the first and the fourth, and a heavenward raising of the academic eyeball to the second and the third. 

I am not exactly wild about such relationships myself, though of course I cannot ‘disprove’ them. 

But I can show that it is all too easy to conjure up – and conjuring is a good word for it – relationships of a similar type which are almost certainly the result of pure numerical accident.  The first example of note is that 1 kilometre = 5/8 mile to a fair degree of accuracy.  Yet the metric kilometre and the English Mile were never designed so as to be related to one another in such simple numerical terms.  The result is simply a useful accident of numbers (1). 

There is a general distaste (or so it seems) amongst many students of Ancient Science for the Metric System.  It seems to be considered as a cold, scientific and non-sacred system of measures.  Most, though perhaps not all (2) who read this article will probably grant, therefore, that any relationships between the Metric System and the Megalithic Yard or Egyptian Cubit etc. are very probably the result of pure accident.  Yet such relationships do exist.  I can present the following as a selection – doubtless there are others (3):

π metres = 6 Royal Cubits
1 km = 2222 Short Cubits (and thus
1 decimetre = 2/9 Short Cs.)
1 dekametre = 27 Remens
5 metres = 6 Megalithic Yards
11 sq. metres = 16 sq. Megalithic Yards

So, if these are granted to be accidental relationships, how much reliance can we place in the relationships of Messrs. Field, Ivimy and Michell?  How sure can we be that their relationships have any more significance than the Metric equivalents just presented? 

Another metrological pursuit consists of fitting various units of measurement to ancient monuments, both as regards their individual internal structures, as well as their distances with respect to each other.  Norman Field,in the TLH piece already mentioned, remarks that churches, mounds and so forth “are frequently found 2·72 miles apart”.  And Michael Behrend has investigated the apparent use of the so-called x and y units in his {73} ‘Landscape Geometry of Southern Britain’ (I.G.R. Occasional Paper No. 1). 

I now ask the question, “How easy is it to ‘fit’ a unit where perhaps it doesn’t really belong?  How easy can it be made to appear that a unit of measurement was used in the layout of a network of sites, whereas in fact, no such unit was actually used?  Few people, I would imagine, would believe that churches were deliberately sited in relation to each other so as to be separated by simple multiples of a kilometre.  I therefore took this as the basis of a simple experiment.  I chose 20 churches in and around the town of Sudbury ( 1:50 000 O.S. Sheet 155), their grid references being given in the table:

Of the distances measured (4) between pairs of churches, the following ‘evidence’ for the use of the kilometre came to light:

However, in view of Heinsch, I felt that perhaps I hadn’t quite gone far enough.  I therefore devised a totally imaginary unit of measurement, called the F-unit, which was 1·661 km (5). 

Of the distances measured between pairs of churches, the following ‘evidence’ for the use of the F-unit came to light:

Of course, there is no real evidence here at all for the ‘use’ of either the kilometre or the F-unit.  The point is that between even as few as 20 churches there are 190 inter-church distances, and this is quite a large enough number to result in several of those distances being simple multiples of either unit. 

To demonstrate the ‘use’ of a unit is not as simple as finding a ‘lot’ of distances which are simple multiples of that unit.  The ‘lot’ must be statistically ‘approved’ as it were.  Needless to say, the evidence here presented for the use of the km and F-unit in the layout of churches around Sudbury is not statistically approved, even though, for a group of only 20 randomly-chosen churches, it might be a little surprising.  With a couple of hundred sites to work with, as opposed to only 20, the scope for chance playing tricks with measurement units increases rapidly, and great care must be exercised to avoid chasing metrological mares’ nests.  {74}

To escape an accusation by chance, the validity of a unit of measurement, such as, for example, the Megalithic Mile or the F-unit, must be tested along the lines used by Thom to establish the Megalithic Yard – i.e.  using some sort of statistical theory for quantum hypotheses.  Without such precautions, metrology can be a very risky business. 

NOTES