During the British Neolithic, circa 4000-2500 BC, we witness the look of quite a few ceremonial and home monuments dominating the prehistoric panorama. Providing an absolute complete of what number of have been constructed throughout this era will not be attainable. Undoubtedly, we might be wanting at a determine in the hundreds. And, if we settle for the opinion of archaeologist Andrew Flemming, then the architectural type of these buildings was so designed that their look visibly indicated the particular forms of ritual or different utilization that might be legitimately held there. Accordingly, their respective designs would have needed to been nicely thought out: their structure needed to meet the visible and experiential expectations of the individuals. All in all, one is led to contemplate the chance that any fashion of monument was the results of deliberate planning and that the prehistoric builders have been utilizing megalithic arithmetic to assist them with design. But that is the place we hit the main downside to this assertion which this text makes an attempt to deal with.

The British Neolithic communities have been preliterate, they usually have left behind no written information or sculptured schematics of any variety that might be interpreted as proof of prehistoric metrology (the science of measurements). In brief, archaeologists have but to get well any materials proof of deliberate measuring or megalithic arithmetic.

Thus, we’re left with the impression that the British Neolithic communities have been illiterate and no higher than “savage, ignorant builders” who may neither suppose, rely nor measure and but they nonetheless by some means managed to assemble advanced monuments reminiscent of Stonehenge. Surely, this isn’t the case?

*The entrance space of West Kennet Long Barrow in Wiltshire, which was additionally utilized by the writer to disclose Neolithic megalithic arithmetic in a time when no written communication existed! (Jarkeld / **CC BY-SA 4.0 **)*

## Experimental Archaeology Can Reveal Megalithic Mathematics

Without a doubt, British Archaeology doesn’t have a cheerful relationship with the thought as as to whether or not intentional metrology or megalithic arithmetic have been concerned in the development of Neolithic buildings. Suggestions that there might need been “gifted individuals,” reminiscent of Neolithic architects performing advanced arithmetic will not be very welcome, particularly throughout the world of academia. At greatest, educational consideration in direction of such mental architects are typically glossed over or, at worst, merely ignored.

Thus, relating to analyzing proof for these measuring programs that constructed advanced buildings, reminiscent of the Cotswold Severn lengthy barrows , then it’s so a lot simpler to keep away from mentioning metrology. In truth, keep away from the topic is the greatest technique. Otherwise, one could have the problem of each explaining and demonstrating the existence of Neolithic numeracy throughout prehistoric Britain, for which there is no such thing as a quick “hard” proof.

So the place does one search for justification. I’m an archaeologist who has spent over 25 years reconstructing the architectural designs of many quite a few British Neolithic monuments. To achieve this, I firstly survey an extant Neolithic construction . Secondly, I scrutinize my survey outcomes, on the lookout for measurements “proportional to the whole.” Thirdly, I try to reconstruct its floor plan utilizing three experimental strategies which, I consider, the prehistoric communities have been able to performing.

My beginning place with the reconstructions is to make the most of measured lengths of ropes to set out on the floor the designs for my supposed reconstructions. Certainly, it may be accepted that the individuals of the Neolithic have been making rope. Perhaps the earliest proof for the use of ropes throughout the British Neolithic will be implied from the quite a few attrition marks discovered at the Cissbury, Grimes Graves and Blackpatch Neolithic flint mines, *circa *4000-3000 BC. Undoubtedly, the rope was used to haul the quarried flint from deep inside the mines in direction of the floor.

My subsequent place states that the Neolithic communities oriented the design of their monuments through the use of the solar’s shadow as solid at noon as a way to determine the course of true north. Whilst there could also be no quick archaeological proof to recommend that the British prehistoric communities have been utilizing this explicit approach for orientation, it does appear to have been a well known, common, age-old observe for figuring out the course of north. Incidentally, the strategy of discovering a north-south line through the use of the noon solar was a way historically employed by the English church buildings builders for setting out their constructing works: a method that was repeatedly utilized for nearly the final two thousand years.

The last place accepts that the individuals used a rudimentary type of finger reckoning for figuring out how their ropes needs to be folded when setting out such buildings. Simply put, that the prehistoric communities might need folded their measured ropes into shorter lengths utilizing finger reckoning, that’s relying on their fingers to calculate the variety of folds required for setting out the design of the supposed construction to be constructed i.e., fold the rope as soon as equals one finger; fold it twice equals two fingers; and so forth. Let me now clarify how these three experimental strategies can be utilized to reconstruct the trapezoidal form of a Cotswold Severn lengthy barrow.

## The Megalithic Mathematics of the Cotswold Severn Long Barrows

It was the archaeologist Glyn Daniel who first coined the time period the “Cotswolds Severn Group” to categorize the architectural similarities amongst numerous Early Neolithic lengthy barrows present in areas of North and South-eastern Wales, the Cotswold, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Berkshire. These lengthy barrows have been constructed very early in the Neolithic, * circa * 3850 BC.

And they fell out of use round 3400 BC. Providing a definitive complete as to what number of Cotswold Severn lengthy barrows might need been constructed will not be attainable however there may have been as many as 200 of them. The architectural similarities between them have been in line with their trapezoidal-shaped earthen cairns protecting a mix of megalithic stone-lined passageway(s) and chamber(s). The West Kennet lengthy barrow (Wiltshire) being, maybe, the most well-known British barrow of this sort (Figure 1B & 1C).

*Figure 1. A: location of the Capel Garmon and West Kennet lengthy barrows; B: exterior view of West Kennet; C: inner view of West Kennet. (Author supplied) *

## Case Study: Analyzing the Capel Garmon Long Barrow

In the following case research, I’ll focus on the Capel Garmon ( Denbighshire) lengthy barrow, *circa* 3500 BC (Figure 2). A typical Cotswold Severn design with facet entrance and three stone-built, inner chambers. Its orientation is East/West, with the wider proximal finish going through East. After performing a survey at this extant lengthy barrow, I concluded that it might be reconstructed in its entirety utilizing a size of rope 48 ft lengthy (14.64 meters).

In different phrases, the dimensions of all its architectural options (i.e., the size of the protecting cairn, its passageway, entrance, three chambers, two horns and each its proximal and distal ends) have been all proportional to an entire measurement equal to 48 ft lengthy. Therefore, it was only a matter of folding the 48 ft size of rope accordingly in a selected sequence of shorter lengths to set out its full architectural design (see Figure 6).

However, for this case research we’ll confine our reconstruction train to the setting out the barrow’s outer form, that’s, its distinctive trapezoidal form (Figure 2 inset). I notice that the reader might not have entry to bodily reconstruct this form on a big sports activities discipline however, alternatively, you possibly can scale it down accordingly and draw its geometrical form onto paper (see Figure 4).

*Figure 2. The Capel Garmon lengthy barrow; Inset: barrow plan. (Author supplied) *

The first process is to set out a big circle with a radius of 48 ft (14.64 meters). Next, place one stick at the circle’s middle and at noon be aware the course of the stick’s shadow as solid by the solar. At noon, the shadow reduces in size to its shortest level, and thus signifies the course of true North (Figure 3).

Now use the shadow to behave as a line of sight and have a helper place a second stick at the true North place on the circumference line of the giant circle. Use these two sticks to behave as a line of sight in an effort to place a 3rd stick in a straight alignment, due South on the circumference line of the giant circle.

Then, stand at the middle of the giant circle, going through true North and maintain out each your arms in order that they’re at parallel with the floor and at proper angles to true North. Your outstretched arms now decide the instructions of each due West and East. Then place two extra sticks on the circumference line of the giant circle (i.e., West factors in the course of your left arm, East factors in the course of your proper arm). You have now recognized the 4 cardinal factors in your giant circle.

*Figure 3. The easy means of figuring out the cardinal factors **. (Author supplied) *

Next fold the 48 ft of rope in half and set out a circle with a radius of 24 ft (7.32 meters) standing at the East cardinal level. Place two markers at the two factors the place the second circle crossed the first circle i.e., proven as positions B1 and B2 in Fig. 3. This process identifies the width for the proximal finish. Next, fold the 48 ft rope into 1 / 4 and set out a 3rd circle with a radius of 12 ft (3.66 meters) standing at the West cardinal level once more inserting markers at the two factors the place the third circle crossed the first circle i.e., positions C1 and C2 as proven in Figure 4. This process identifies the width for the distal finish (slender finish).

The last sequence is to then use line of sight between the 4 markers (B1, B2, C1 and C2) and mark out two traces (i.e., B1 to C1, B2 to C2) in order that the edges of the cairn will be marked out.

*Figure 4. Schematic plan of a reconstruction for the Capel Garmon lengthy barrow **.*

*Figure 5. The trapezoidal form of the Capel Garmon lengthy barrow **. (Author supplied) *

In Figure 5 we see the identical consequence as marked out on a sports activities discipline. So, congratulations, you might have simply reconstructed the trapezoidal form of a Cotswold Severn lengthy barrow utilizing a size of rope that want solely be folded thrice by relying on three fingers of your hand, rudimentary sensible megalithic arithmetic!

## Discussion: Proving Deliberate Megalithic Planning

Of course, on the one hand, there is no such thing as a proof to state that the builders of those lengthy barrows have been truly utilizing these experimental strategies to set-out their designs. But, on the different hand, it can’t be denied that the Neolithic builders have been intentionally planning their lengthy barrows, maybe utilizing the very related megalithic mathematical strategies to these I’ve mentioned right here. For how can or not it’s defined that I can precisely recreate the design of any Cotswold Severn lengthy barrow merely utilizing a single size of rope, the solar’s shadow at noon and finger reckoning arithmetic (see Figure 6). Moreover, my very own survey information collected from different Cotswold Severn lengthy barrows additional helps the kind of proportional arithmetic I’ve simply described on this case research, and in Table 1. I present the relationship between a barrow’s distal and its proximal ends for seven different lengthy barrows.

**Table 1. A pattern of the proportional measurements surveyed at different lengthy barrows ****.**

With all the examples listed in the above desk, the mathematical correspondences between a barrow’s distal and proximal ends will be defined by folding a single, measured size of rope in related sequences to which I’ve demonstrated with the Capel Garmon reconstruction.

Undoubtedly, experiments like the one I provide right here can clarify how the Neolithic builders may have precisely set out on the floor the designs of their lengthy barrows. Certainly, the individuals would have had entry to these ropes which may have been used for measuring, maybe, in related methods through which many different historical cultures used their ropes for surveying and measuring, as an illustration, the well-known Egyptian rope stretchers involves thoughts.

Finally, folding a size of rope again and again to find out the dimensions of the supposed construction to be constructed is indicative of each components of Neolithic metrology and numeracy. Moreover, this precept of counting may clarify why the prehistoric finger reckoning arithmetic wouldn’t have left any “hard” proof in the archaeological report. Thus, the proven fact that we shouldn’t have any bodily proof of prehistoric metrology, “written in stone,” doesn’t imply that the idea of numeracy didn’t exist, and undoubtedly reconstructions such the one mentioned right here can reveal simply how succesful the Neolithic communities have been at counting and measuring.

*Figure 6. Folding a single size of measured rope, again and again, reproduces the design of the Capel Garmon lengthy barrow. (Author supplied) *

Dr. Hill’s e-book, * The Recumbent Stone Circles of Aberdeenshire: Archaeology, Design, Astronomy and Methods * is accessible at: **https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-6585-2**

*Top picture: The entrance to Wayland’s Smithy, considered one of the Cotswold-Severn Group Neolithic stone buildings, appears primitive however megalithic arithmetic will be discovered right here, and experimental archaeology proves it. Source: Msemmett / **CC BY-SA 3.0 *

By Dr John Hill