Hello Hermione,

>>From what you describe, the methodology seems extremely unsound.<<
The thing is that although the methodology one follows is not sound his findings sometimes have value and need to be checked further in a more systematic and strict way. The scope is not just to prove his theory wrong or right, but to get to the bottom of the underlying structure that makes his theory at times – should I say look so good.

>>In order to determine its validity and usefulness, the methodology employed would have to be subjected to a great many tests under laboratory conditions. This doesn’t seem to have happened in this case.<<
I agree, I’m just not sure if “hard” science like techniques are always applicable in “soft” science type fields like let’s say history.

>>Read van der Waerden, Bartel. (1952/1953). "History of the Zodiac." (Archiv für Orientforschung, Volume 16, Pages 216-230).<<
Thanks. I’ll see if I can find it. BTW do you know of any book on the market that covers this issue well?

>>[www.stefanides.gr]<<
I am aware of Stefanides’ work but what does it have to do with Manias – apart from the fact that it revolves around geometry?

>>(You might also find this of interest: Peterson, J.W.M., "Mathematical detection of patterns in ancient landscape", In The use of Geographic Information Systems in the study of ancient landscapes and features related to ancient land use, Edited by Peterson, J.W.M., Luxembourg, pp. 111--113, 1998.)<<
Thanks it sounds very interesting.

>>Or if we realize that a characteristic of geometry is that geometric forms can be constructed around locations set at random in the landscape. This does not mean that the locations were originally chosen as part of a large-scale geometric plan of some sort … unless there is corroborative evidence, such as in the case of Roman land surveys, where we do know that large-scale grids were surveyed. There were also survey grids in places like Corinth.<<
There are algorithms which give you the possibility of finding a number a isosceles triangles for example given a certain data set. When the data set is large – the number of positions is large - you are bound to find alignments(three sites on one line), isosceles triangles, or more rarely equilateral triangles. Depending on the outcome you judge if the sites were pre-planned or random. But the whole problem is the methodology in forming the data set. Do you mix in sites established in the classical era with Mycenaean or Neolithic sites, do you mix in cities with places of religious value(Delphi) etc. There are cases where corroborative evidence does exist but it has not been taken into account by the experts –see references in myths which have been dismissed as fantasy.

>>Who dreamt about alignments that, so it appears, don’t necessarily work properly ...<<
Well some of his alignments work out for example Olympus of Pieria and Olympus of Bithynia are of the same latitude. The important this is to determine why certain mountains were considered holy – while others not. It wasn’t necessarily a question of size.

>>Who appears to have worked by drawing lines on inaccurate maps … On the question of how easy it is to mishandle data of this sort, you might find "Is improved numeracy needed for the study of Roman land surveys?" (John Peterson) of interest; [www.romansociety.org] (You might have to approach the author himself for details of how to obtain this study).<<
I read a bit about surveys in Colin Renfrew’s book on Archeology. Thanks for the link.

BR