John Neal - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by John Neal
As of the present, September 2024, I found in my files a document that I had believed lost; it wa... more As of the present, September 2024, I found in my files a document that I had believed lost; it was written, by request in 2009, soon after the death of my friend, John Michell, as part of his memorial ceremonies. It was published in a now defunct glossy magazine, but only after much editing and omissions that altered its core objectives, it was meant to clarify the system of metrology that John Michell had discovered. It is here: https://www.academia.edu/44849417/John_Michell_article_final Unfortunately, in the process the baby was largely thrown out with the bathwater; this original document is rather more informative regarding the subject matter of historical metrology, so I deemed it worthy of inclusion.
The Measures and Numbers of the Temple, 2000
The Measures and Numbers of the Temple The plan of the Temple as revealed to King David was, like... more The Measures and Numbers of the Temple The plan of the Temple as revealed to King David was, like the plan of the Tabernacle that preceded it, a composition of proportions and harmonies that represented the structure of the universe. It was measured by certain 'sacred' units, all related to the foot as used today, and also related to the dimensions of the earth. Describing his vision of the Temple, the prophet Ezekiel mentioned three units in its dimensions: the cubit, the cubit-and-a-handsbreadth or greater cubit and the reed of six greater cubits. These are:
Some years ago I wrote a lengthy article on the Chinese metrological systems and noted many remar... more Some years ago I wrote a lengthy article on the Chinese metrological systems and noted many remarkable similarities with European and Middle Eastern methods of mensuration. This was particularly true of the module lengths. Although the various chi lengths were preponderantly three quarters of the European feet, they were very precisely so. One peculiarity of their system was that it was, to a degree, gendered; often enough references to a body part module such as a hand, was a length ascribed either to a man or a woman. I noted at the time-"The reckoning of Shouwen as to the long palms of a man and a woman having a five to four relationship, in a literal sense cannot be correct."
Oh buggery! I thought I could get away with it….. posting up ADWM without explanation, that is. N... more Oh buggery! I thought I could get away with it….. posting up ADWM without explanation, that is. Now I have to explain. Twenty-four years ago (Jesus H Christ!) "All Done With Mirrors" was published, part of my researches into the subject had led me into the halls of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford wherein the Arundel metrological relief is housed; it was most probably the pediment of a door to the weights and measures department of an indeterminate Hellenic Aegean city.
THE BENCHMARK: (a. something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged.... more THE BENCHMARK: (a. something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged. (b. a point of reference from which measurements may be made. For the present author the ability to transmit this communcation began in 1981; this is the year that John Michell published a slender booklet "Ancient Metrology" "The Dimensions of Stonehenge and of the Whole World as Therein Symbolised." Within this brief work all of the information necessary to interpret these latest revelations of the Great Pyramid were codified, this is because he proposed two legitimate values for the foot and cubit modules of different cultures that commonly differed by the identical unit fraction. He showed that the fractional difference of 175 to 176 was present in the measurements of the Roman, Greek, Jewish, a module he termed Polar and royal Egyptian systems. At that time he believed that this fraction was dictated by the geographical differences of the degrees that lengthen from equator to pole, the southerly degree at 10 degrees, he called Tropical, and the other at 51 degrees, he termed Northern. There were 362,880 feet in the southern degree and 364,956 feet in the northern, the resultant geographic feet, the 360,000th of the degree, were southern 1.008ft and northern 1.01376ft, he recognised these as values of "Greek" feet. He based these on Sir Francis Penrose' measurement of the Parthenon stylobate that he gave as 101.376ft that he remarked was one second of a mean geographic degree, the second is John Greaves who gave in many publications around 1640 firm values for the Greek foot of 1.008ft. Without going too far into the realms of ancient metrology I will give his values of the royal Egyptian cubit because that is the other principal measurement to define, in order to interpret the Great Pyramid's design, function and location. The royal Egyptian cubits that he identified with exactitude were 1.71818ft, and at the 175th part longer, 1.728ft. There are other and more compelling reasons for these variations in modules of measurement, and indeed, very many more relevent measures and regular variations but this is enough for the task in hand, which is to explain recent enquiries into the more puzzling aspects of the pyramid design.
The unique square bronze rod A 16mm square bronze rod. With hieroglyphs on one side the other thr... more The unique square bronze rod A 16mm square bronze rod. With hieroglyphs on one side the other three sides are divided into three different scales that are variants of the same measure. This is not a royal Egyptian cubit but is a variant of the so-called "Nippur elle" whose cubit is given as 518.4mm. The full length cubit is 520mm divided into six distinct palms each of four digits. The shortest scale is of 511mm with 12 distinct divisions each subdivided into six, the final 12 th shows each of the lesser divisions divided into fives; 360 of which would be the cubit length. This smallest division is therefore 1.4194mm. The median of the three scales at 514mm is most interesting because it is divided into 27 equal digits, it is no coincidence that 16 of these digits is the English foot. Therefore 27 divided by 16 = 1.6875 and this is the precise length in English feet. At its Nippur elle variant of 518.4mm Berriman proposes that this was the cubit of the design of the hypostyle hall at Karnak at 1.701ft. (Historical Metrology, p83).
Ancient Metrology, Vol I: A Numerical Code, 2016
It was thought necessary to include these additions to Measuring the Megaliths, as these notes ar... more It was thought necessary to include these additions to Measuring the Megaliths, as these notes are pertinent to the scheme in the light of further information. The present author through ever widening researches into metrology had, quite early on, reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as a Megalithic yard.
Avantoure, 2009
This was written by the request of a web oriented magazine to celebrate the life of the deceased ... more This was written by the request of a web oriented magazine to celebrate the life of the deceased philosopher- antiquarian John Michell. I have posted it here to give some background to the study of historical metrology.
Wonders Lost and Found: A celebration of the archaeological work of Professor Michael Vickers, 2020
The evidence for the structure of ancient metrology strongly suggests that all the measurement sy... more The evidence for the structure of ancient metrology strongly suggests that all the measurement systems in use throughout the ancient world formed part of a unified system. This may at first sight appear to be a bold claim but it is justified since their similarities far outweigh any differences. These similarities are clear when considered in the light of variations in individual modules. It is acknowledged that variations in the same module exist, but this is largely attributed to errors of copyists when making new rulers. This is, however, inherently unlikely since canonical rulers were presumably issued by the custodians of the temples where prototypes were maintained. If these were lost then the known dimensions of the temple itself would guarantee a faithful copy. Furthermore, the variations in the modules were universal and occurred in every ancient standard of mensuration. The eminent Egyptologist W. Flinders Petrie was aware of such variations and observed two that occurred repeatedly that were variations of the 450 th and 170 th part. 1 Subsequent research has enabled these variations to be more exactly expressed as the 440 th and the 175 th part. The reasons for their existence lies in the need to maintain integers in both diameters and perimeters of circular designs, wheels, rotundas, storage vessels and surveying at geographic scales etc. Ancient sources, from cuneiform texts to Vitruvius state that if the diameter of a circle is a multiple of four units then 3.125 (25/8) is the ratio used for pi and the difference between this and the universally used 22/7 is the unit fraction 175 to 176. This means that an integer is maintained by using a module the 175 th part longer on the perimeter. In all other cases seven is the number that defines the radius of a circle and the design module is found by dividing the radius by seven. When archaeologists today analyse ancient measures, they tend to create averages of the variations as the definition of the units, but this destroys the integrity of the system to which they belong and obscures the fact that the variations in question were both practical and deliberate. Both fractions are most easily demonstrable in the structure of metrology with commonly known measures such as Greek and Roman that are universally acknowledged to be linked by the unit fraction 25 to 24. If we consider the variant of the "Roman" foot given by Petrie at Stonehenge 2 it perfectly illustrates both the precision and permanence with which standards could be maintained in a structure, and the international nature of the modules. We now know that the absolute value of the "Roman" foot that he deduced from the inner diameter of the sarsen circle was .9732096ft and Petrie measured the whole 100 Roman feet to within one twentieth of an inch of this value. He termed it a Pelasgo Roman foot and later termed the same value as Etrurian, the implication being that he had found evidence of the same foot length being used at these locations. Livio measured this value to within a millimetre overall as the length of the naos or cella of the Parthenon. The same foot value is given with extreme accuracy as the measured length of the running track of the Nemea
Drafts by John Neal
this paper is the full document; the previous file posted here was half of this file. a few peop... more this paper is the full document; the previous file posted here was half of this file. a few people (a pitifully few people) have requested this complete file
canonicalman/woman by John Neal
As of the present, September 2024, I found in my files a document that I had believed lost; it wa... more As of the present, September 2024, I found in my files a document that I had believed lost; it was written, by request in 2009, soon after the death of my friend, John Michell, as part of his memorial ceremonies. It was published in a now defunct glossy magazine, but only after much editing and omissions that altered its core objectives, it was meant to clarify the system of metrology that John Michell had discovered. It is here: https://www.academia.edu/44849417/John_Michell_article_final Unfortunately, in the process the baby was largely thrown out with the bathwater; this original document is rather more informative regarding the subject matter of historical metrology, so I deemed it worthy of inclusion.
The Measures and Numbers of the Temple, 2000
The Measures and Numbers of the Temple The plan of the Temple as revealed to King David was, like... more The Measures and Numbers of the Temple The plan of the Temple as revealed to King David was, like the plan of the Tabernacle that preceded it, a composition of proportions and harmonies that represented the structure of the universe. It was measured by certain 'sacred' units, all related to the foot as used today, and also related to the dimensions of the earth. Describing his vision of the Temple, the prophet Ezekiel mentioned three units in its dimensions: the cubit, the cubit-and-a-handsbreadth or greater cubit and the reed of six greater cubits. These are:
Some years ago I wrote a lengthy article on the Chinese metrological systems and noted many remar... more Some years ago I wrote a lengthy article on the Chinese metrological systems and noted many remarkable similarities with European and Middle Eastern methods of mensuration. This was particularly true of the module lengths. Although the various chi lengths were preponderantly three quarters of the European feet, they were very precisely so. One peculiarity of their system was that it was, to a degree, gendered; often enough references to a body part module such as a hand, was a length ascribed either to a man or a woman. I noted at the time-"The reckoning of Shouwen as to the long palms of a man and a woman having a five to four relationship, in a literal sense cannot be correct."
Oh buggery! I thought I could get away with it….. posting up ADWM without explanation, that is. N... more Oh buggery! I thought I could get away with it….. posting up ADWM without explanation, that is. Now I have to explain. Twenty-four years ago (Jesus H Christ!) "All Done With Mirrors" was published, part of my researches into the subject had led me into the halls of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford wherein the Arundel metrological relief is housed; it was most probably the pediment of a door to the weights and measures department of an indeterminate Hellenic Aegean city.
THE BENCHMARK: (a. something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged.... more THE BENCHMARK: (a. something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged. (b. a point of reference from which measurements may be made. For the present author the ability to transmit this communcation began in 1981; this is the year that John Michell published a slender booklet "Ancient Metrology" "The Dimensions of Stonehenge and of the Whole World as Therein Symbolised." Within this brief work all of the information necessary to interpret these latest revelations of the Great Pyramid were codified, this is because he proposed two legitimate values for the foot and cubit modules of different cultures that commonly differed by the identical unit fraction. He showed that the fractional difference of 175 to 176 was present in the measurements of the Roman, Greek, Jewish, a module he termed Polar and royal Egyptian systems. At that time he believed that this fraction was dictated by the geographical differences of the degrees that lengthen from equator to pole, the southerly degree at 10 degrees, he called Tropical, and the other at 51 degrees, he termed Northern. There were 362,880 feet in the southern degree and 364,956 feet in the northern, the resultant geographic feet, the 360,000th of the degree, were southern 1.008ft and northern 1.01376ft, he recognised these as values of "Greek" feet. He based these on Sir Francis Penrose' measurement of the Parthenon stylobate that he gave as 101.376ft that he remarked was one second of a mean geographic degree, the second is John Greaves who gave in many publications around 1640 firm values for the Greek foot of 1.008ft. Without going too far into the realms of ancient metrology I will give his values of the royal Egyptian cubit because that is the other principal measurement to define, in order to interpret the Great Pyramid's design, function and location. The royal Egyptian cubits that he identified with exactitude were 1.71818ft, and at the 175th part longer, 1.728ft. There are other and more compelling reasons for these variations in modules of measurement, and indeed, very many more relevent measures and regular variations but this is enough for the task in hand, which is to explain recent enquiries into the more puzzling aspects of the pyramid design.
The unique square bronze rod A 16mm square bronze rod. With hieroglyphs on one side the other thr... more The unique square bronze rod A 16mm square bronze rod. With hieroglyphs on one side the other three sides are divided into three different scales that are variants of the same measure. This is not a royal Egyptian cubit but is a variant of the so-called "Nippur elle" whose cubit is given as 518.4mm. The full length cubit is 520mm divided into six distinct palms each of four digits. The shortest scale is of 511mm with 12 distinct divisions each subdivided into six, the final 12 th shows each of the lesser divisions divided into fives; 360 of which would be the cubit length. This smallest division is therefore 1.4194mm. The median of the three scales at 514mm is most interesting because it is divided into 27 equal digits, it is no coincidence that 16 of these digits is the English foot. Therefore 27 divided by 16 = 1.6875 and this is the precise length in English feet. At its Nippur elle variant of 518.4mm Berriman proposes that this was the cubit of the design of the hypostyle hall at Karnak at 1.701ft. (Historical Metrology, p83).
Ancient Metrology, Vol I: A Numerical Code, 2016
It was thought necessary to include these additions to Measuring the Megaliths, as these notes ar... more It was thought necessary to include these additions to Measuring the Megaliths, as these notes are pertinent to the scheme in the light of further information. The present author through ever widening researches into metrology had, quite early on, reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as a Megalithic yard.
Avantoure, 2009
This was written by the request of a web oriented magazine to celebrate the life of the deceased ... more This was written by the request of a web oriented magazine to celebrate the life of the deceased philosopher- antiquarian John Michell. I have posted it here to give some background to the study of historical metrology.
Wonders Lost and Found: A celebration of the archaeological work of Professor Michael Vickers, 2020
The evidence for the structure of ancient metrology strongly suggests that all the measurement sy... more The evidence for the structure of ancient metrology strongly suggests that all the measurement systems in use throughout the ancient world formed part of a unified system. This may at first sight appear to be a bold claim but it is justified since their similarities far outweigh any differences. These similarities are clear when considered in the light of variations in individual modules. It is acknowledged that variations in the same module exist, but this is largely attributed to errors of copyists when making new rulers. This is, however, inherently unlikely since canonical rulers were presumably issued by the custodians of the temples where prototypes were maintained. If these were lost then the known dimensions of the temple itself would guarantee a faithful copy. Furthermore, the variations in the modules were universal and occurred in every ancient standard of mensuration. The eminent Egyptologist W. Flinders Petrie was aware of such variations and observed two that occurred repeatedly that were variations of the 450 th and 170 th part. 1 Subsequent research has enabled these variations to be more exactly expressed as the 440 th and the 175 th part. The reasons for their existence lies in the need to maintain integers in both diameters and perimeters of circular designs, wheels, rotundas, storage vessels and surveying at geographic scales etc. Ancient sources, from cuneiform texts to Vitruvius state that if the diameter of a circle is a multiple of four units then 3.125 (25/8) is the ratio used for pi and the difference between this and the universally used 22/7 is the unit fraction 175 to 176. This means that an integer is maintained by using a module the 175 th part longer on the perimeter. In all other cases seven is the number that defines the radius of a circle and the design module is found by dividing the radius by seven. When archaeologists today analyse ancient measures, they tend to create averages of the variations as the definition of the units, but this destroys the integrity of the system to which they belong and obscures the fact that the variations in question were both practical and deliberate. Both fractions are most easily demonstrable in the structure of metrology with commonly known measures such as Greek and Roman that are universally acknowledged to be linked by the unit fraction 25 to 24. If we consider the variant of the "Roman" foot given by Petrie at Stonehenge 2 it perfectly illustrates both the precision and permanence with which standards could be maintained in a structure, and the international nature of the modules. We now know that the absolute value of the "Roman" foot that he deduced from the inner diameter of the sarsen circle was .9732096ft and Petrie measured the whole 100 Roman feet to within one twentieth of an inch of this value. He termed it a Pelasgo Roman foot and later termed the same value as Etrurian, the implication being that he had found evidence of the same foot length being used at these locations. Livio measured this value to within a millimetre overall as the length of the naos or cella of the Parthenon. The same foot value is given with extreme accuracy as the measured length of the running track of the Nemea
this paper is the full document; the previous file posted here was half of this file. a few peop... more this paper is the full document; the previous file posted here was half of this file. a few people (a pitifully few people) have requested this complete file