## Blog Ness of Brodgar 2010

**Introduction**

This is the last entry in the Blog on the Ness of Brodgar 2010, which relates the Links of Noltland to (the last phase of?) the Ness, being contemporary and culturally identical.

The blog can be read back in time, so from here downwards, but starts chronologically at the bottom on August 4, 2010

6/9/10

Westray, Links of Noltland

I am on Westray (Orkney) at the moment where the rescue dig at the Links of Noltland is ongoing in a strong wind. This is the place where they found a whole series of upturned cow skulls in the foundation of the walls of one structure with a deep hearth in the middle. An upturned cow skull was also found at the hearth of Structure-10 at the Ness, which is still viewed by the professionals as a type of shrine, whereas I suggest it is a communal kitchen, or at least a kind of domestic place.

Unless you believe they worshipped the cow, which is not impossible and would be another deep link to the Vedic tradition, it seems more likely it was a fad at some time, for the foundation of communal kitchens, say; anyway it does not sit very well with the supposed ancestor worship.

The architecture of some buildings at the Links is the same as at the Ness, that is, straight walls inside and rounded walls outside, which points to contemporaneous building and use, as does the upturned cow skull, it is another Grooved Ware settlement.

A pot just found at the Links has Boyne Valley spirals, just as the Pierowall and Eday stones, again a definite indication of a cultural link with Boyne Valley, Ireland, as I have argued all along, an evidence which has been resisted by some professionals for a long time now.

*****************

30/8/10

Below is a Blog, going back to the beginning of August, it is all about the analysis of the mathematical design found at Structure-1 at the Ness of Brodgar.

You can read it downwards, so you see the build up back in time

27/8/10

The Ness of Brodgar Blog

This week The Orcadian, our local weekly newspaper, has four central pages on the excavation at the Ness of Brodgar. It contains interviews with leading archaeologists, among whom one, presented as an ‘internationally renowned expert in the archaeology of death’.

He has proposed, regarding the Stonehenge landscape, the theory of the two realms, a realm for the living and a realm for the dead. There it would be Woodhenge and Durrington Walls as area for the living, and Stonehenge as area for the dead. We had just come to think of it as a scientific center, I thought, but, no, the cult of the dead must and shall prevail in archaeology it seems. It is a tragic fallacy in my view, because it does not do justice to a brilliant and highly scientific and spiritual culture.

Here I cannot resist the temptation to quote the end of the article in which this leading archaeologist ponders about the impetus for the ‘super megalith’ buildings in southern England, like Avebury and Stonehenge, and comments the following:

“Maybe, one of the places for inspiration was Orkney and that there was something very, very special about the stretch of land where we are today. (that is the Ness of Brodgar, YG)

” These days there’s the assumption that because a place is isolated, in modern-day eyes, how could it possibly be a place of innovation and originality. But it must be remembered that we have our earliest Grooved Ware pottery dates in Orkney and eastern Scotland and I think there’s every chance that you’ve got something of a social, political, even religious revolution that began here and was adopted in different places”.

Just weeks ago, see 8/8/10 below, I reiterated my conviction about the importance of Orkney for the whole of Britain, like I have done now for two years on this website. I did not need the excavation at the Ness of Brodgar to come to my conclusions nor for any of my other suggestions that proved right, I have never put a spade in the ground for archaeology, but I build my views by visiting the chambers, by measuring and comparing data and by logical analysis of the excavation evidence, which in most cases was there for years already; I know Orkney for only three years now and I am not an archaeologist, but I keep ahead of them because of a different, that is, a thoroughly practical and down to earth approach.

As I see it, too many scientists get completely caught up in the scientific paradigm (ideology) of their day, thoughtlessly accepting the premises of such view even when more and more facts can’t be explained. This happens everywhere in science because concepts and insights in the wider society change.

Sometimes it is a great advantage to have a completely unbiased look at things and scientific theories; better to know nothing at all and be amazed about really important things which too many professionals overlook. This holds for all the areas of science I cover on this site.

25/8/10

I have measured Structure-1 on site now by laser and most measures are spot on which shows conclusively in my view that my units do indeed hold within these domestic and rather precise proportions. The results are at some difficult points not as clear yet as I had hoped though.

I measured 6.57m for the width of the hall at two points (6.55m in theory), also 1.31m for the east pier and its width of .66 m, the measure 1.31m holds also for the SW recess south wall; the west wall of that SW- recess plus that of the pier width measures 3.91m (3.93 in theory), so these are all very strong confirmations, on less than an inch, of the validity of the ulna bone length as a standard unit. (see at ‘Math at the Ness of Brodgar’)

I could not establish the same length of 3.93m (15 ulna bones of 26.18cm) between the piers but maybe this will reveal itself once the base is reached and the intrusive rubble wall cleared. Wall and pier have subsided eastwards, which has widened the gap between the piers.

What was wrong was the estimate of the depth of the south recess but its width brought a new confirmation in the width of 2.62m inner dimension, which is exactly 10 ulna bones, plus 0.20m stone separation, plus the width of the doorway 1.11m (3 x 37cm), together the width of the total recess 2.62 + 0.2 + 1.11= 3.93m. which is the side of the main double square.

The north rectangle is much damaged in the north corners, but the south rectangle with the two squares of 25 half ulna bones seems clear and holds confirmation of all my measures.

The principal rectangle on which the calendrical numbers are based, is at least for the southern half certain. Maybe next year will bring more conclusions on this. For the moment my analysis still stands, which means that the calendar is in the proportions of the main rectangle, its square sides, the diagonals and the radii.

23/8/10

Quicker than I expected I found the use of the prime 67 in the calendar and only because suddenly the number 39 has come to the fore in our analysis. 67 + 67 + 39 = 173 and that is the period of days between possible eclipses half way the eclipse year, the ‘danger time’ as Alexander Thom called it. We saw this period already expressed in the prominently used prime 43, since 4 x 43 +1 is also 173. It was no doubt a very important feature of their cosmology and predicting the eclipse would have been a fact of great standing in neolithic society, so groups of cosmologists may have rivalled each other on such predictions. Predicting is a major aspect of science and one of the things that make science so useful to society at large.

I also find now these enigmatic relations with the Vedic architecture, which point so emphatically to the universal ways in which the human mind expresses the harmony of the heavens in numbers and geometrical proportions, arising completely independent in different places and ages.

Not by chance though, but as well founded mathematical concepts of the ‘divine’.

20/8/10

I have added the ideas below in different words to the opening page on the Ness

At other pages (Numbers explained) I have already mentioned the units of length that AB Powell has suggested for Newgrange which are no less than 13.1 and 11.1 metres!. Half of 13.1 m is 6.55m which I have calculated as the width of Structure-1 at the Ness of Brodgar, that is 25 ulna bones, it happens to be the overall width of Newgrange between the back stones of the two siderecesses, the length between C3 and C14 is 6.55m (O’Kelly1982).

The 11,1 m I have calculated as the overall length of the hall of Structure-1, is exactly 30 fibula of 37.025 cm, 30 x .37025 = 11.11m, it is the unit Powell proposed for Knowth.

[But this is all coincidence, of course. I am world champion finding coincidences in archaeology with my mathematics.]

18/8/10

Unfortunately I am beset by technical and other problems which make the frequency of my comments much less than I would have liked. Anyhow I found new exciting confirmation on the mathematics of Structure-1 at the Ness of Brodgar and added some new pictures to sustain the analysis and some predictions, see ‘Math at the Ness’.

The post on the Ness, which opens this site, is still under construction so you can expect additions in the coming days or hours.

Because I have heard from many people that the site is difficult I will try to elaborate more on specific structures and topics in this place. The difficulty is partly due to the fact that I have come to address the professionals, students and motivated amateurs of archaeology in these pages, so a lot of knowledge is presupposed.

I will try to change that.

At the moment I will concentrate on Structure-1 at the Ness of Brodgar because it already now is the most apparent evidence of the validity of my bone-measure system which essentially is based on a standard unit, the ulna bone of the male fore arm, 26.18cm long, and its derivatives, the fibula bone of the female calf, 37.025 cm long, which is the ulna bone length times square root 2 and the tibia bone, shin bone of the male skeleton with a length of 41.14 cm, which is 11/7 times the ulna length, or, the half circle over an ulna diameter and is also 10/9 the fibula length, the quarter circle over a square side. (see ‘Neolithic Bone Measures’)

It are these different units, which have a definite geometric relation to each other, which make it possible to express all the ratios of sides, diagonals and circles in whole numbers.

Analysis of the dimensions of Structure-1, but also of other places, has convinced me that in fact at least for the smaller, domestic, dimensions they, in fact, employed the bones themselves and no megalithic ells and yards, which are double these lengths and reserved for the bigger circles.

In fact there is ample evidence now that also the halves of the bone lengths were used, as will become clear, when I publish the extraordinary further analysis of the ratios of Structure-1. We will see that a unit of a half ulna bone, 13.09 cm is most plausible, because it renders the found measurements into whole numbers and very meaningful ratios. It is even possible that this halving went down to units of 6.55 cm, 3.27 cm and 1.64 cm. These may have been used to define the openings of side cells, which are nearly always different, and seemingly out of measure, but that analysis I leave to others.

The measure of 13.09 cm is exactly 1/100 of the unit of circa 13.1m that Andrew B. Powell proposes for Newgrange (1994). Four times 13.09 is 52.36 cm, my Megalithic Ell (ME), which is rather close to the phenomenally intuitive William Stukeley’s Druids Cubit of 52.83 cm (20.8 inch) (1743). As in the case of Alexander Thom’s Megalithic Yard, 82.9 cm, my unit (MY=82.28) fits the data better, up to ‘exact’ and there is no need of a Megalithic Rod (2.5 MY), nor of a Pi of 25/8 or 3.125, as he suggests they used. There are things wrong and inconsistent in Thom’s reasoning and claims of precision, but still his work is of great importance to megalithic archaeology and with appropriate corrections completely compatible with my system, so his vast body of research remains an invaluable contribution to archaeology.

I understand that archaeologists shrink from claims for units of length after the controversies that the work of Alexander Thom has brought about, but my work is not at all based on his work and indeed differs quite a lot from Thom’s in that:

a/ in my work I do not produce the data myself, but use those of established authorities, b/ my model is simple and understandable with a little effort, (but a quick look is not enough, nor does it justice), c/ anyone can check the data and calculations for her- or himself, when they have the source books and a calculator at hand, d/ no astronomy is involved at all, e/ it is logically consistent and f/ it is extremely handy and easy to remember, with key primes 13, 37, 41 in the units of length.

8/8/10

(Blog starts 4/8/10) Continued.

Further analysis of the design of Structure-1 shows that another pair of squares is involved and even the piers can be viewed as small double squares, so this is further evidence of the great sophistication and mathematical foundation of this design.

What is new is the obvious use of the numbers 5 and 10 and their multiples (15, 25, 30), which I have not found anywhere else in Orkney yet; these numbers occur in the design of Newgrange and possibly Knowth. Maes Howe is based on square 9, a hidden circle 10 (and possibly number 8 as the cube), Brodgar 9, 7 and 11. Stenness is as yet not fully clear, because conflicting data have forced me to revise some earlier numbers, or at least give several possible versions now, but 43 still stands.

In ‘The numbers explained’, which is a very compact analysis of all the major megalithic works and holds the proof of this model, I have shown how Newgrange can be translated into ulna bone lengths in multiples of 5 and 10 (based on Powell/Burl). So this suggests another important link to the Boyne Valley.

In my view the Boyne Valley, Orkney and Callanish, Hebrides, were centers of cosmological learning, Stone Age ‘universities’, which attracted visitors from far afield.

In ‘The Creation of Time’ I call those travellers who came to Orkney, ‘Pilgrims of Time’, because I think the science of cosmology was a kind of religion to a growing number of people, a deeply spiritual way of life, a union with the cosmos, much in the way that early science in Greece was the domain of mystics, philosophers and their following. This ‘enlightened’ scientific culture, which created scientific time, would spread as the Grooved Ware culture all over the British Isles.

So, no cult of the dead, no priests and no ceremonies here, because I refuse to resort to that kind of easy explanations for want of a better story; it is out of character with the shamanic egalitarian society we are dealing with, where death was most probably primarily a domestic issue and contact with the dead left to the shaman.

The Ness of Brodgar would be the place where there was accommodation for visitors, in Structures 12 and 8, a lecture hall (+ pendulum) in Structure 1, a communal kitchen in Structure 10, with a forecourt for cattle, brought in from all over Orkney, waiting to be slaughtered. The architecture of the Ness buildings make them contemporary with Maes Howe and this is why I don’t believe Structure-2 at Barnhouse was contemporary with the rest of that village, which is much earlier than Maes Howe.

It is the cruciform architecture which stands out and suggests a specific roof construction with beams and slates (further indication that the buttresses in Maes Howe carried beams for a second -open- floor)

Really straight walls and rectangular corners come late in the Maes Howe culture, see the development from Quoyness to Quanterness and now the Ness Structure-1. It is hardly ever really straight.

A proper logical analysis of the architectural development does not need radio-carbon dates to decide what is earlier, what later and what contemporary. A single radiocarbon date is just no date at all, it is usually confusing.

The latest variant on the cult of the dead, as it is mentioned in the excavation blog of the Ness of Brodgar, is the idea of areas for the living and areas for the dead, which has been proposed for the Stonehenge landscape.

Argument would be in Orkney that no significant activity seems to have taken place near Brodgar, so that that would suggest an area for the dead. ( I have suggested elsewhere that the standing stones and the circles attract lightning, so could be very dangerous areas, this is no joke, you better keep away from those areas when a thunderstorm looms, or go on all fours when you are near, as anywhere in the open field, only years ago a big stone in the ring of Brodgar was slit by lightning, a piece fell of, a text tells the story).

Whatever the reason for the idle area, the ring itself has to do with mathematics and Heaven, collecting rainwater probably and other practical or beneficial things for their livelihood.

The ‘cult of the dead’-paradigm and reasoning has the ultimate implication that the society put an awful lot of energy in creating a place, where subsequently nobody would go ( accept for the ever-present priests, of course). But this is not hierarchic Egypt or a present day exotic island in the Pacific.

The problem with the whole ‘cult of the dead’-idea is that it does not make sense in an egalitarian setting, that it supposes that a whole society was constantly breaking their backs for the dead, that is, the dead they one day would be themselves, so, ultimately in this reasoning they would be building these supposed tombs and giant stone circles, which took years and years of often strenuous life, for when they were dead. Such things only occur in hierarchical settings.

5/8/10

(I continue my story of the previous day)

The interesting thing of the mathematical analysis of Structure-1, is the definite appearance of 2 equal squares in the design, and more specifically that this square is based on a length which is also found in Structures 8 and 10.

Since I claim that the mathematical square was discovered in Orkney, this is further evidence of that claim and it links the site definitely to Maes Howe, which must be contemporary.

Important of Structure-1 (first phase) is that it is the best and straightest built and most steady in measure of the structures revealed this far. ( But, like MaesHowe, it is not flawless, which is the margin we have to keep in mind). The fact that this length of 3.93m, being 15 ulna bones (see Bone measures) , is repeated, in several structures is the surest sign they definitely measured and had favorite lengths, a phenomenon which we will see occur time and again in many structures.

To measure you need a unit of length. And to measure various lengths the same over time in different places you need to have numbers in mind and a concept of why you use them.

At the many Clava cairns one of the recurring favorite inside diameter lengths is 3.70m which is 10 fibula, but also 9 tibia. Often we see that the favorite length is one which is expressible in two or even three of our units (as with Brodgar), or where they match very closely. (3.91m = 9.5 tibia, 3.93 =15 ulna).

At structure 1 we see this in the inside length of the structure which is 11.10m = 30 fibula, but also 27 tibia. The striking thing about this length is that it is exactly twice the length of the diagonal of the square of 3,93m, indeed 2 x 15 fibula, the fibula being ‘ulna x square root 2’. The width of the doorway is 1.11m which is 3 fibula (maybe 1.05m = 4 ulna)

The inside width of the chamber is 6.55m which is 25 ulna bones. Now, because the opposite piers inside have a distance of 3.93m, the depths of the 2 recesses is 6.55 – 3.93 = 2.62 /2 = 1.31m = 5 ulna bones. The peculiar thing is that it is possible to construct a Pythagorean triangle of 15 : 20 : 25, which is 3 : 4 : 5, inside the space by connecting one outside corner of the pier with the diagonally opposite recess corner, which is 25 ulna, equal to the width of the space.

It is also possible to discern a rectangle of 6.55 to 7.86 (2 x 3,93) which is a ratio of 5 : 6 (soon I hope to show this in a picture here, for now you can find the raw site plan on ‘Orkneyjar’).

In short, Structure-1 is definitely built on a mathematical design, which is doubtful of the other structures, which seem less carefully laid out, but are not as clear yet.

I know nobody can better this old whole-number-system and this fit, not in another 5 thousand years!

Math is beyond time.

4/8/10

Well, I am back on site. After an absence of some months I am glad to see that my readers have not deserted me, on the contrary, the amount of visits has increased by 30%.

In Orkney the excavation season is in full swing and especially the amazing site at the Ness of Brodgar brings surprises on a daily basis. You can follow the dig closely at the link ‘Orkneyjar’ which is given on my home page at the bottom of the list. There is the daily excavation blog and it is a very good and informative site, where you can spend hours on all that is Orkney.

Just today I will present my calculations of the measurements on site to the leader of the dig and hope to show him how all the measurements can be translated from metres into the bone measures, the ulna, the fibula and the tibia, all related to the human skeleton, respectively, 26.18 cm, 37.026 cm and 41.14 cm.

I even predict on the basis of this analysis, which concerns mainly Structure 1, first phase, that the eagerly awaited revelation of the entrance of structure 10, could very well be on the same southside as Structure-1, because the unclear plan seems to show a similar doorway opening of 1.11m, which is 3 fibula. The official expectation is that it would be on the east side, facing MaesHoweand in line with the dresser in the west recess.

I predicted last year that they would have used slates on the roofs, which was confirmed last week, to the great surprise of the archaeologists. I argued this then in a ‘public discussion’ with a visitor and the guide on site. A year before that, I predicted the eating of Orkney voles, big mice unique to Orkney, which was confirmed last season, listen my video on Quanterness and see the date. It seems my methods and way of reasoning keeps me a year (or years?) ahead of the professionals.

The main point of difference is that I believe the chambers were built for communal survival in all its aspects (refuge, dry storage of seeds and food, maternity clinic, operation theatre) and that most of what they built had practical or scientific reasons, whereas the archaeologists keep to their paradigm of an all pervasive cult of the dead and ceremonial activities for which there is no conclusive evidence. It is inferred from artefacts which are not at all necessarily ceremonial.

Why should a polished stone axe or a macehead be ceremonial, or someone’s personal pot or necklace, why?

There were hardly any rules whatsoever