May 9, 2024, 1:34 pm UTC |
In: The Hall of Maat > Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals - Brief notifications > Search - Brief notifications |
Goto:  Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
M.J.Thomas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I understand it, Hancock and others are arguing > for civilisation starting thousands of years > earlier than is currently thought by 'orthodox' > archaeologists and historians. > Here we have new evidence of a civilisation > thriving in Europe 2,000 years before Stonehenge > anby Hermione - Ancient History
barry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw this in a British newspaper (not sure of the > intellectual integrity of the paper, but I assume > it is not a tabloid) > "The Independent" is a reputable paper, and the author of the article, David Keys is a respected writer on archaeology.by Hermione - Ancient History
C Tedder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Paul claimed he had met the resurrected Jesus who > transformed him from a persecutor of Christians to > an advocate of the faith. Well, to start with: how likely is it that,as a matter of historical fact, such an event ever actually took place ? Would Paul have > endured all he went through forby Hermione - Ancient History
Pete Clarke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I am only talking about the > existence of a religious leader in Judea called > Jesus; I'm not for a minute suggesting that the > various miracles actually occured. I think there > is enough evidence for Robman's "living. > breathing" Jesus but not a lot else. Yes - surely peopby Hermione - Ancient History
Hi Stephanie, Is Estsánatlehi really the goddess of time passing?by Hermione - Humanities
Robman75 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any > evidence for Jesus of Nazareth (or Jeshua ben > Joseph, or whatever you want to call him) as a > living, breathing person. There is a reference somewhere in Tacitus ... however, I've recently learned that this could have been a later interpolation.by Hermione - Ancient History
Martin Stower Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we've seen this before. AFAIAC, once was enough.by Hermione - Ancient History
teacup Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the contrary, I would very much describe Thom's > averages and mathematical constructs as > "internal". > > 2.72 is an intellectual concept, not necessarily > an external reality. Are we misunderstanding one > another here? Yes, we might well be! The quantity 2.72 is the sby Hermione - Coffee Shop
> The internal evidence points to it, But what did you mean by "internal evidence", Teacup? (I wouldn't describe the Thoms' theories as "internal evidence" ... but maybe I've misunderstood your point ... )by Hermione - Coffee Shop
teacup Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Britain held out-- kept an ancient measure, the > British foot. For whatever reason, I have no > idea. > > The metrological evidence > points to it. Well ... it would certainly be very interesting if we COULD find some evidence of an ancient British foot measuring 12 inches ... but, so far, it sby Hermione - Coffee Shop
goaten Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Stephen's point about the foot can be taken both > ways. In Egypt we have the Giza tomb grid unit > equivalent .727 +/- .002 inches. There are no inch > units in Egypt. Then you notice something: > > Petrie's giza digit /2 = .36363 inches. > > 11 x .36363 ... = 4 inchesby Hermione - Coffee Shop
Briefly: I returned it to the manufacturer, who has just rung me, full of apologies. They're sending me another, as similar to the old one as they can make it. So a happy ending ... and thanks to everyone for their advice and suggestions!by Hermione - Coffee Shop
Hi Graham, > Hogben is a great read and he puts up a number of > ideas, some of which I am sure would have been > useful to our megalithic relatives. I have not > come to any conclusion with the stone cubits of > Egypt, iow Were they used for standardization or > were they simply votive, gifts to the temple? In > megalithic Britain finding a MY stone rod would haveby Hermione - Coffee Shop
goaten wrote: > It _is_ difficult by any means, tape, pole, rod or > rope. Imagine laying out 100 MY (272 ft > thereabouts) on a specially prepared flat surface. > For instance this could be an excavated channel > previously leveled by water. The MR would be used, > that's 40 rods, each meticulously machined (bad > word) to 81.6 inches, checked against ?? whichby Hermione - Coffee Shop
goaten Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of Dave's objections I have seen before. I > just don't think we can substitute pacing or any > other "all too obvious" means to belittle the MY. > Yes, many of the circles surveyed are rough and > ready and in a bad state of repair but this was a > professional surveyor who kby Hermione - Coffee Shop
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 beby Hermione - Coffee Shop
goaten Wrote: > But would not it be feasible that from this widely > ditributed measure of Megalithic Britain some of > its structure might find its way into the > formation of a later metrological system, for inst > the Imperial, in which case some compatibility > between the two might be observed. Errr ... well, that seems to assume that there WAS a standard systemby Hermione - Coffee Shop
Hi Dave, > > Does this Quanta date to the viking ages, or the > megalithic ages? Well ... when Thom and Merrett were investigating Scandinavian stone circles in the early 1980s, most of the Norwegian ones, at any rate, were dated to between 400-600 AD (114), so Late Iron Age - although, in some cases, no one could really say. Whether any progress has been made on the Scandinavianby Hermione - Coffee Shop
Stephen Tonkin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The major problem I have in seeing this as > anything other than an interesting numerical > coincidence is that the Imperial Foot had not been > defined when the structures using the megalithic > units of measurement were constructed. That's an interesting point, Stephen. As we know, itby Hermione - Coffee Shop
I mentioned the Scandinavian Quantum (with reference) in the other thread, DaveL. Archibald Thom did some research on various Scandinavian monuments, and concluded that they might have been surveyed using a unit (which he called a quantum) of 4.71 feet. From what your previous post, it seems that this is the same measurement as the third side of a 30/60/90 deg. triangle (although, if either ofby Hermione - Coffee Shop
Dave L Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2.72 (1) - 4.711 (root3) - hypotenuse: 5.44 (2). Thanks. So ... the hypotenuse would be the equivalent of one of Alexander Thom's Megalithic Fathoms? And the root 3 side would be the equivalent of one of Archibald Thom's Scandinavian Quanta?by Hermione - Coffee Shop
Dave L Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > depends which side is 2.72 feet. > > Is it the 1 side, the 2 side or the root 3 side? Well ... that's an interesting question! Supposing, however, 2.72 feet was the extent of the "1" side ... ?by Hermione - Coffee Shop
Thanks, Prema ... but no ... my question is: if one side of a root 3 triangle measures 2.72 feet (a Megalithic Yard), what do the other sides measure?by Hermione - Coffee Shop
On another thread concerning Alexander Thom's Megalithic Yard, Teacup pointed out that: > (Sq. root of 3 divided by 2) X pi = 2.7207 Root 3, of course, is the third side of a right-angled triangle with sides 1:2:root 3 ... so I asked what would the other sides of that triangle would measure ...by Hermione - Coffee Shop
teacup Wrote: > Oooh, oooh, I know this one... > > (Sq. root of 3 divided by 2) X pi = 2.7207 Hermione: So a right-angled triangle with sides 1:2:root 3 ... well, just out of curiosity, what would the other sides of that triangle measure, Teacup? Teacup: > One British foot and two British feet ? Dave L, could you answer my question?by Hermione - Coffee Shop
teacup Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oooh, oooh, I know this one... > > (Sq. root of 3 divided by 2) X pi = 2.7207 So a right-angled triangle with sides 1:2:root 3 ... well, just out of curiosity, what would the other sides of that triangle measure, Teacup?by Hermione - Coffee Shop
goaten Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- He did'nt go looking for the MY. I > thought I mention that. > > This is not a pacing measure, in fact it not even > a measure you can set out with a rod. It's too Ø good for the rod. I don’t understand these comments, Graham! Admittedly, I’m not convinced that a standard unit measuring 2.72 feby Hermione - Coffee Shop
Joanne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Millenaire Monastique > (especially > > vol. 3). > > Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Is there any > author? It's a huge compilation of papers by many authors (5 volumes' worth!). A lot are in French; a few are in English, and one or two in Italian. > > Don't fby Hermione - Ancient History
Dave L Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from the sites you list there are dozens of > sites that don't adhere to any multiple or > anywhere near a multiple. I explained in my previous post that there were many sites that weren't the same size as any other site. However, sorry, I don't understand your remark: multiple of what?by Hermione - Coffee Shop