goaten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hermione Wrote:

as we've seen,
> there's
> > a significant school of thought that's very
> > sceptical about this theory.
>
> Granted but that leaves an insignificant school of
> thought who think that Thom might have found
> something significant. I admit that I belong to
> the insignificant school of thought.

OK. But what's your position on Dave L's objections to and criticisms of Thom's methodology?

>
> Even if one did
> > accept it, it's very difficult to buy into
> > Alexander Thom's suggestion that there was a
> kind
> > of central area - Avebury IIRC - from which
> > standards were sent out;
>
> I agree and I said so in a very recent posting.
> Duplicating a standard in terms of wood or whale
> bone have a lot of associated problems, not the
> least of which is wear and tear, damaged or
> misplaced master rod, etc. Did he really believe
> that was the answer? I doubt it.

Yes, you posted quite a long response on the other thread, about the physical difficulties of multiples of standards. I suppose one could have a rope of such-and-such a length ... but it would sag, and be generally difficult to work with.


> I am not familiar with Kidson unfortunately but I
> am most interested to hear his explanation of how
> those imperial measures originated. I'll endeavour
> to track down the source your gave

(It's well worth it, in my view, if you can: it's a brilliant piece of writing, although I find the arguments quite complex).

>but in the
> meantime can you give me any more info on the
> classical Roman connection.

Well, for instance, he says that before the English perch was defined as measuring 16.5 English feet, it was the equivalent of 17 Roman feet (75); the significance of the number "17" was the role that it played in doubling areas of land (i.e., 17 is more or less the diagonal of a square whose sides measure 12 units [77]). So the presence of "17" indicates that a root 2 ratio was at work somewhere. He also mentions a mediaeval document called Pauca de Mensuris, a short text found amongst the works of the Roman agrimensores. It apparently mentions all the Classical Roman units, together with some new ones - which, again, give evidence of a root 2 connection.


I have looked at Roman
> measure and quite frankly I came away totally
> confused. So much conflicting data tempts one to
> pick and choose and that always leaves you
> vulnerable.

Well, I don't know that Kidson necessarily throws much light on Roman units themselves - rather, he uses them to form the basis of his argument! However, he provides diagrams of showing the geometrical interrelationships between later units, which is certainly some help in understanding what was going on.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me