Megalithic measures by Thom

Megalithic Fathom

Thom came to the conclusion that the megalithic yard was a universal yard stick, distributed by certain people to make sure that buildings were build using this common yard stick. I have the idea that this megalithic yard is more based on the human proportions.

The stone circle diameter data provided (Thom [1967], table 5.1, pages 37-39) has been evaluated with the proposed statistical method of Broadbent (1955, 1956). The category within that method used, was named Case IIb, which means: Using this method on the data, one gets the following results:

This picture tells us when a possible periodicy (quantum) provides statistical confidence (when Cquantum>=C(1%)~1). So using the table of measured diameters from the Thom book, this happens at 5.44 [feet]. Thom calls this length the Megalithic Fathom (1967, page 41).

Analyzing this deductions, I come to the following issues:

In the below I only use the Megalithic Fathom, because there are no valid arguments available for the megalithic yard. If people have ideas on the above things, please let me know.

Megalithic inch

Thom also looked at smaller measures than the Megalithic Fathom and megalithic yard. One of them was the megalithic inch. He has found this from measurements provided in his book Megalithic remains in Britain and Brittany (from cups and rings). He found that the megalithic inch was 0.817 inch.
By using the same data and the Broadbent method (1955, 1956), in the below picture one can see the value C, that determines the likeness of a possible quantum.

There is no real likeness of a quantum at 0.817, but another strange thing is that Thom now does not use the factor two that has been discussed in the above section!

A paper that discusses the megalithic inch (by Alan Davis, paper in Records in stone), finds beside 1 MI also quantum's of close to 3 MI and close to 5 MI (1% probability level).
He also provides an other idea, supported by me, why 3 MI, 5 MI, 1 MI, 1 MY, etc. could be common:
Alternatively, one might justifiable argue that the 5 MI quantum is very close to the mean width of a human hand, and interpret 1 MI as a mean finger width. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between these two hypothesis on the basis of present data.
I fully agree with this statement!

Related link

Disclaimer and Copyright

Last content related changes: January 10, 1996