Before the Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery (13 page)

The first one showed the size variation of cursuses up to 800 m in length. The graph showed a hugely disproportionate number of cursuses with integer lengths in metres. The ones that were 100, 200, 300, 400 and 750-m lengths accounted for the majority of them. Of course Loveday could be rounding these up, but he had not done so for all of them. However, the next graph was even more telling.

This graph showed the distribution of both henges and cursuses by average monument width. Again, the cursuses show an overwhelmingly integer distribution of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 100-m widths. But, importantly, the henges do not follow any pattern in terms of metres. Of the 23 cursuses, 20 display these integer widths.

Roy Loveday would have no reason to round his dimensions up or down just for the cursuses and not for the henges. It looks as though the metre, or more precisely, the seconds-pendulum length of 99.55 cm was used as the standard measure before the henge builders began using the Megalithic Yard. Some of the cursuses are 6,000 years old, so the second and the metre are almost certainly extremely ancient indeed.

Where could the second/metre have come from? We had an impression that we were looking at something that was probably already ancient when these cursuses were constructed. It felt as though this was a reconstruction, not an origin. For a start, we know that light travels at 600,000,000 half-kush per second in a vacuum, and that the oldest known method of counting is the Sumerian system of using 60 and 10. So it seems highly likely, if somewhat surprising, that the originator of the metre and second knew about the speed of light.
³
This seemed crazy but we do not allow our preconceived ideas to block facts or blunt investigation. Later, we were to come across a scientist who has a potential answer to this vexing question. A completely stunning solution!

Yet we also knew that the apparently later megalithic system was also the result of a fantastic level of scientific awareness that is inconsistent with the apparent abilities of the Neolithic people of the British Isles. It was clearly based on knowledge of many special relationships involving the physical nature of the Earth – and even the Moon and the Sun. In addition, the 366 system indicates an awareness of other marvellous harmonies in both light and music.
⁴
And it even suggests a stunning scale of temperature where the freezing point of water is zero degrees, boiling point is 366 degrees and absolute zero (the lowest temperature in the universe) is exactly minus 1,000 degrees. All too neat to be an incredible series of coincidences.

We realized that we had accidentally tripped over something utterly remarkable – something that was far more important than the niceties of Neolithic archaeology. Our civil engineer friend, Edmund Sixsmith, has drawn together all of the powerful workings and correspondences that we have found within the 366 system. He calls them the ‘Knight and Butler Symmetries’. But we have been far from the first to find evidence that contradicts the traditional view of the past. The ‘chaos to order’ theory that believes that the evolution of societies has been a fairly smooth upward curve from ignorance to excellence, is ridiculous and obviously wrong. The distant past is obviously far more complex than archaeology claims.

Thomas Jefferson carefully studied all known British measurements in the 18th century and concluded that they were the result of scientific knowledge from somewhere in deep antiquity. Like his colleague, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was a polymath, with a truly first-class brain, who took a macro view of his subject. Alexander Thom and Livio Stecchini were metrologists of the 20th century who were not frightened to investigate the facts on a macro level and cold-bloodedly report inconvenient facts.

Thanks to the aid of modern technology we have been able to put the fabulous work of these men into a context – and provide many new facts that amount to the evidence that standard archaeology claims is not there.

It is time for a rethink. Facts can only be ignored for so long.

•

We have been openly critical of archaeologists and the way that archaeology is run – but we do have considerable respect for the good work that is done by so many people. At various stages of our separate and mutual researches we have made contact with many world-class scholars in the fields as varied as biblical studies, geology and astronomy. Most have been highly cooperative and some have become great personal friends. Archaeology has proved much harder to penetrate.

We are aware that the whole topic of ‘mysteries of the past’ has always attracted some odd people and there are some rather weird theories flying around. Academics cannot take the time to assess every new idea that is put before them – but some theories can quickly be seen to have more merit than others. Neither of us set out to form a new paradigm of ancient history but we were taken to it by evidence that presented itself.

When were working on our first joint book we contacted the world’s first professor of archaeoastronomy, now professor emeritus at the University of Leicester. We received a reply that he had read and enjoyed one of Chris’ previous books,
Uriel’s Machine
which, with significant contributions from Alan, first introduced the idea of the pendulum origin of the Megalithic Yard. This was a great start but unfortunately that was the end of the short relationship. All future attempts at correspondence with this particular expert have failed to solicit any kind of response. We even wrote to him pointing out that his important position surely made it a duty to respond at some level – even if it was to disagree.

We wrote to Aubrey Burl, a much-published digger of megalithic sites who, before retiring, had been a principal lecturer in archaeology at Hull College of Higher Education in the East Riding of Yorkshire. We received a polite reply, which stated that he had never ‘seen a Megalithic Yard’ as if it were a simple matter of taking out a tape measure.

Having had a very positive response from a range of mathematicians, a leading astronomer and a number of engineers after
Civilization One
was published, we wondered about approaching someone who had a generic interest in science and was used to reviewing new and challenging ideas. As previously mentioned, we asked the British Association of Teachers of Mathematics to look at the evidence we had uncovered and received a very positive response. We then decided to contact Michael Shermer, the American who founded the Skeptic’s Society, and is Editor in Chief of its magazine,
Skeptic
. Here was a man and an organization that specialized in challenging new ideas.

We sent a brief outline to Shermer and asked if he would like a copy of the book. The response came back quickly enough but it was rather strange. He sounded like a bored aristocrat, mentioning that he was rather enjoying sipping his fine tea on the lawn. The next thing we knew was a review of our book in
Skeptic
magazine.

Shermer had passed the copy of
Civilization One
to a junior freelance writer called Jason Colavito, a young man who, we believe, had become a born-again Christian before rather rapidly losing his newfound faith – causing him to be deeply resentful of all new ideas. The review was nothing short of witless and rather hysterical. He described the book and the ideas in it as follows:

Superficial and often unreadable because of a dense number of mathematical equations, the book commits the lust sin of popular literature: it is no fun to read. Crammed into just over 250 pages are so many unbelievable assertions and unproven speculations that it would take a book-sized rebuttal to do adequate justice to this triumph of numerology over science.

In other words, he had not been able to follow the basic sums (no equations except for technical appendices) and had found the subject matter too hard to get his head around. There were neither assertions nor unproven speculations in our book, as we had been especially careful to provide very solid evidence for everything we said. It was a pity that Colavito did not provide one single example of where we made unwarranted claims or where we had made an error.

Sad really – we are hungry for objective criticism and reasoned debate, but reviews of this variety achieve nothing but a diminished reputation for a publication that allows such poor journalism to exist within its pages.

In the summer of 2008 Chris was in northern Scotland in the company of Malcolm Sinclair, the Chief of the clan Sinclair and the Earl of Caithness. Malcolm has many henges and megalithic structures on his estates and he was very interested to hear about the work we were involved with. He suggested that we should make contact with Richard Bradley, a professor of ancient archaeology at Reading University, as he himself has a number of new ideas concerning henges. We duly prepared a briefing paper and sent it to Richard Bradley.

The reply was polite but less than encouraging. Professor Bradley pointed out some mistakes that Alexander Thom had made due to his inexact understanding of archaeology, but also gave the engineer some credit for opening up the subject. Bradley did not agree that Thom had been entirely ignored, saying that few archaeologists would now dismiss the idea of ancient metrology entirely. He confirmed that some re-analysis of the megalithic sites he had surveyed had vindicated a number of Thom’s claims.

But he did feel unqualified to comment on the calculations that are the basis of our argument, saying:

But you must appreciate that my grasp of the maths is rather tenuous, so I cannot comment on that aspect of your work.

We are very grateful for the response from Professor Bradley, and his admission that he is not especially numerical is fair enough – but if mathematics is a part of understanding the past, is it not time to extend the range of tools available to the discipline? Our challenge to find someone with the blend of skills necessary continues.

Because our civil-engineer friend, Edmund Sixsmith, believes that the work of Alexander Thom has been unwisely ignored – and he considers that the ‘Knight and Butler Symmetries’ deserve recognition and serious examination, he has invested a goodly amount of time in trying to correspond with the anti-Thom experts and seeking well-placed allies to take them on.

He wrote to archaeoastronomer Clive Ruggles saying:

I am writing a brief ‘biographical sketch’ article for the Royal Statistical Society magazine, which they plan to publish shortly, and I thought I should consult you in its preparation.

The article aims to be factual and non-controversial. In about 1,500 words it will summarize the story of Thom’s megalithic work, his ‘findings’ and the response they generated.

He received no response. A follow-up call to Ruggles’ secretary confirmed that he had received the letter. We believe him to be a charming and extremely bright man and do not expect him to reply to unsolicited letters from the public, but Edmund felt this was a disappointing performance in the circumstances. It is clear that the professor would like everyone to regard the case as being closed.

Edmund found Aubrey Burl an excellent letter-writer and unfailingly courteous. One day he had a telephone conversation to follow up some queries about past Megalithic Yard research work. Burl was forthcoming about the work and believes that while regional yardsticks were used (a Perth Yard, a Boyne Yard, etc.) there was no single precise unit. He admired Thom’s prodigious output of surveys but disagrees with his conclusions. Edmund was curious to find out how Burl dealt with statistics. Had he acquired statistical expertise himself? Or had he engaged a statistician to assist him in the work, and if so who? The answer was – neither. Aubrey Burl had led the team and relied on his own measurement, arithmetic, logic and intellectual abilities.

The academic Thom debate seems to have ended in 1999 when Clive Ruggles banged the final nail in the coffin of the Megalithic Yard as an accurate unit. He concluded his judgement by saying ‘for a thorough statistic critique the best source, once again, is Heggie’.
¹

Edmund’s new step was to approach Douglas Heggie, who is professor of mathematical astronomy at Edinburgh University. This proved to be much more fruitful. Asked, by email, where he stood on the Megalithic Yard, the distinguished professor replied that his main approach had been to question the supposed accuracy of the Megalithic Yard rather than the concept itself, which he said survives in some rather elusive form. However, Professor Heggie was open about the fact that he did not consider himself to be expert in statistical analysis.

Edmund responded by saying that he had taken it that Heggie was the key expert and that he was a little surprised to hear his modesty about his statistical expertise. Heggie confirmed that there was nothing particularly expert about his discussion of the Megalithic Yard. What he had sought to do in his book,
Megalithic Science
, was to marshal the kinds of suspicions that any scientist would consider when faced with apparently strong statistical evidence for a new hypothesis.

Douglas Heggie has been totally honest and, of course, has acted entirely properly. But this does splendidly illustrate the way that the processes used within academia can create a situation where everyone cites everyone else in criticizing an unwanted theory. Follow the audit trail back far enough and there is some good quality debate but nothing that could be said to prove Thom wrong.

This is the root of the problem.

Aubrey Burl had once declined even to look at our findings on the basis that ‘because we had started with an error (the Megalithic Yard) all our further work was nothing more than a compounded error’. If, as they say, all progress is due to the unreasonable man, then we could also observe that all progress can be halted by the man who believes that he knows too much to need mere evidence.

We cannot stress how incredibly difficult it is to gain an intellectual foothold with new ideas, even when they do not challenge any generally accepted facts. But what we have challenged – head on – is the veracity of certain embedded ideas of what the Neolithic peoples of northwestern Europe could and could not have achieved. To suggest that they understood complex matters such as the spherical nature and dimensions of the Earth, Moon and Sun is written off as wrong, without the tedious necessity of considering new evidence – especially when that evidence requires some new skills for many archaeologists.