A Correlation of Measures

There is an historical study that has been ignored and yet which is one that most of us can partake in at a personal level with the minimum of equipment. The study is metrology, measurement, or to be a little more accurate ancient measurement. In fact most of this is not as ancient as one may assume but was in use right up to metrication in the modern world. A great deal can be revealed simply by the survey of old buildings such as churches, cathedrals, monasteries or palaces along with many civic buildings. Dimensions are frequently seen applied to artefacts in museums which again can provide valuable information. Here in the UK and across Europe much can be discovered in relation to the setting out of the landscape and the spacing of churches. Sometimes hitherto unknown relationships emerge, sometimes with associations to standing stones. Occasionally some extremely clever setting out is seen with right angles demonstrated that were constructed over miles of undulating countrysidelong before the advent of modern equipment. How was this achieved? Further while this can be demonstrated to be the case in Europe, and almost certainly India, does the same criterion apply elsewhere and if so just where? This is where the ordinary person with an interest in history can personally make a highly valuable contribution. The book Measurements of the Gods [MOTG] tells of the history of the ancient measures as far as it is understood but while the book in highly informative there equally is much more that is not understood such as where and when were the unit measures used outside of the areas mentioned in the book? Further, considerably more examples are required to convince the academics of the validity of this study and hence again, the interested amateur historian certainly has apart to play here. The following text gives some examples of what can be seen and is a taster of the sort of information contained in the book. To start we shall look at a misconception. The so called Royal Cubit of Egypt. There is no such animal, the cubit is not Royal that is merely a name attached to a unit measure by archaeologists because of an association with Giza and pyramids. Flinders Petrie examined all the monuments at Giza and made cubit values for each from the measures of side lengths, interior passages and chambers. The mean of these evaluations he stated was 20.620 .005inches. 20.62ins has henceforth been generally accepted as being THE applicable value. However this unit does NOT associate with any other value in use in the ancient world. The value calculated by John Michell for this unit, which is readily related to numerous other values in the ancient canon of measure, which Petries mean measure is not, is 20.6181818181 inches. 20.620 less 20.6181818181 = 0.00181818 of an inch against Petries tolerance of 0.005 of an inch. Very clearly this is well within the tolerance allowed and what this value shows as it complies with numerous other measures is that Petries evaluations link virtually exactly with those of a later Michell. Michell had discovered the correct target value which Petrie could not find in Egypt as he did not have sufficient other values with which to make the evaluations conducted successfully by Michell. Yet very sadly Petries erroneous mean value, since known as the Royal Cubit, is said in academia to be correctwhen it is notit is very close but not precise, an exact value will fit with the measures of other placesas does that of Michell. So we have here a value that is associated with other measures-in fact among numerous other situations it complies perfectly with a circle of postholes discovered in Denmark! The evaluation of the measures is seen in the book MOTG including many examples such as the George Washington Monument in the USA, numerous famous domes, including the White House and other interesting structures. Here we now look to another example that has only recently been revealed and is not in the book. Note the connections to other sites and to Biblical myth.

Yahoo New Zealand on 30th June 2011 revealed that a Cambodian Baphuon Temple at Siem Reap has been finally restored after many decades of work. It was taken to bits, stone by stone way back in the 1960s with the stones being numbered. Since then wars in the region have

made work impossible for much of the time and a great deal that was accomplished was overturnedthe numbered stones were scattered. The building as found before work commenced was in danger of collapse hence the restoration attempt, a great accomplishment that due to external causes took far longer than anyone had imagined at the time. The dimensions of this temple are given as 130 metres by 104 metres or as stated, 426 feet by 340 feet. Its height is stated to be 35 metres or 114 feet. Note that the recorded dimensions are in exact whole numbers of feet and exact whole metres and hence neither will be strictly accurate but are approximations. It is clear from these approximate dimensions [426 feet =129.8448 metres6.1 inches difference to 130 metres] that the original units utilised for the construction of this building were not understood which is a great pity is as much more would be revealed if this had been the case. To elucidate what the researchers and re-building crew apparently did not understand, the following, based only on perimeter and height is revealed. Other parts of the building would reveal more. 440 x 0.968 feet = 425.92 feet 352 x 0.968 feet = 340.736 feet. 792 x 0.968 feet = 766.656 feet Half perimeter = 792 x 0.968 feet = 766.656 feet against the recorded :426 + 340 feet or 766 feet. Full perimeter is seen here as 792 x 2 = 1584 x 0.968 feet The supplied metric measures of 130 and 104 metres give a total half perimeter of 234 metres which is 767.7165354 feet. Evidently there is no accurate parallel here and the Imperial evaluation will give a nearer correlation to the original structures dimensions as whole metres give base units of 3.280839895 feet. The survey was obviously conducted in Imperial units of feet. Height is given as 114 feet which can be viewed as:1.584 feet x 72 or 108 x 1.056 feet or 1.152 x 99 or 1.188 x 96 or 120 x 0.9504 [0.9504 feet is seen at Angkor Wat as the base unit utilised] all equally 114.048 feet which is within 0.576 of an inch of the stated 114 feet. The connections here are that the values seen are all part of the ancient canon of measures. For example the Bible applied a cubit of 1.76 feet to the Ark of Noah as this fitted the boat shaped geological anomaly that was observed at Mount Nisir as described in the Gilgamesh account and which was the model for the mythical Ark. This value was also applied to the Ark of the Covenant and was replicated in mediaeval buildings in Europe showing this quite clearly. Additionally Noah was born, according to Genesis in the year 1056. Why this specific year? The volume of the Ark of the Covenant was 30.66624 cubic feet and half of this was 15.33312. At Chartres Cathedral in France [dedicated in 1260] there is an inscription over the North Door that indicates that the volume of the Ark of the Covenant needs dividing to find something important to that cathedral.

In effect what this is giving is the key to the unit by which it was built. When fully deciphered this gives a cubit measure of 0.968 x 1.584 or 1.533312 feet as the cubit utilised in its construction. But of course the ability to understand this puzzle was dependent upon knowledge of the dimensions applied Biblically. The evaluation seen here has been confirmed by comparison to the work of others who have surveyed the building and arrived at a conclusion that complies within the smallest fraction with this version. Louise Charpentier combined his surveys of Chartres with those of others to arrive at the conclusion that a cubit value of 0.738 metres had been utilised. In feet this is 2.421259843, which is virtually exactly 2.42 feet being within 0.015118116 inches or 0.384 of a millimetre. However this is a step value of 2.5 feet and not a cubit which is 1.5 feet. The step of 2.42 feet, which effectively was Carpenters evaluated measure, produces a cubit of 1.452 feet with its foot value of 0.968. The following applies to Chartres Cathedral France Unit Foot Cubit Cubit Step Reed Value 0.968 1.5 x 0.968 1.584 x 0.968 2.5 x 0.968 9 x 0.968 British Value 0.968 British feet 1.452 1.533312 2.42 9.199872 Metric Value 0.2950464 0.4425696 0.467353498 0.737616 M 2.804120986

Here at Siem Reap we find that we have a full perimeter of 1533.312 feet which is the measure of 1584 x 0.968. 1533.312 = 1.452 x 1056 where 1056 is Biblically the year of Noahs birth. 10.56 feet is the distance centre to centre of the sarsen uprights of Stonehenge. 7920 x 4 = 31680 where 316.8 is the centreline circumference of the Sarsen lintels of Stonehenge. The famous Rosslyn Chapel at Edinburgh Scotland is another structure that emulates the Ark of the Covenant and it also was constructed using the 0.968 foot unit as a base. 7920 British miles is the round figure earth diameter that was accepted internationally prior to the surveys by French engineers in preparation for metrication. The English mile is demonstrably an ancient measure. There are numerous numerical connections to these values, measures and counts of time that were very widely utilised in the ancient world but which were lost with the onset of metrication. Here we have confirmation of the use in France and Cambodia in the very early Mediaeval period of Europe of the same units of measure, measures as yet to be understood by academia, units which are to be found at Stonehenge, a design, if Aubrey Burl is correct as it is believed he is, that stems from Northern France but which dates to the same era as the Egyptian pyramids which structures utilised the same and other measures. The information seen here except for the Baphuon Temple is derived from the two works:-

Deluge: From Genesis to Atlantis http://www.completelynovel.com/books/77135 and Measurements of the Gods http://www.completelynovel.com/books/77136 Both books available in paperback or to read online at completelynovel.com These books can also can be downloaded in PDF or read online at
http://independent.academia.edu/HarrySivertsen/Books

Queries to Harry Sivertsen h.sivertsen@btinternet.com