It has long been realised that there were apparent relationships and common pedigrees within systems of metrology adopted by several early and late era civilisations of the Middle East, Near East, Mediterranean and Europe.
A drove of researchers have commented on this and have attempted to identify the original system from which a raft of latter, regional systems were derived.

Particular numbers and ratios tend to recur in grain weights, cubic capacities and length increments between cousin civilisations. The foundation numbers for each system are, on the surface, large, complicated looking values and few researchers have any inkling as to why such cumbersome numbers were initially chosen in the first instance. For the foundation numbers of any system, the ancient metrologists used numbers with many factors. This is a point not often grasped by researchers. Such numbers often appear cumbersome when expressed in decimal (base ten) form, which is generally unsuitable for them. We shall express them in terms of their factors when convenient.

To understand the numbers one must first delve into the astronomical and navigational sciences developed in antiquity and come to the realisation that the values incorporated into a length, weight or volume were for mnemonic reference to such things as the "size of the Earth" or perhaps the "cycle of the moon", etc.
Once one knows this, then the ancient standards of the Sumerians/ Babylonians, Egyptians, Hebrew/ Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Celts/ Norse/ Gaul's/ Iberians/ Britons and others of these people who scattered abroad to distant colonies, can be understood, restored to full integrity and shown to be of a common origin.

Over time small amounts of drift and error might well have occurred in the standards of inter-bickering nations, but the important factor was that these nations of cousin peoples had their systems fashioned on the selfsame parcel of original base numbers. The numbers were derived from an earlier, very sophisticated system found encrypted into the pyramids of the Giza Plateau.

Far from these systems developing over time and getting progressively more sophisticated, the evidence clearly suggests an international system of metrology that started out as a full, scientifically complete construct, which, if anything, was in decline by the time the Christian era dawned. With the coming of Roman Christianity the formerly advanced sciences of metrology were systematically and deliberately eradicated and, those civilisations forced to embrace Roman state Christianity, were delivered into the "dark ages" by the loss of knowledge contained within traditional metrological systems.

The original system covered all contingencies and used the full range of base numbers from 1 to 12 (or progressions of 13 in some calendar counting), including the ratios PHI & PI. By the dawn of the Christian era some civilisations in decline were seemingly using only limited portions of the overall, earlier system for their national measures, weights, volumes and area standards.

For several centuries archaeologists have attempted to reconstruct the regional standards of past civilisations by taking measurements within ruined remnant structures, measuring capacities within surviving amphora vessels, or by analysing the decipherable meanings within ancient inscriptions and texts. From this endeavour a reasonably healthy dossier of information now exists and we have a fair or close knowledge of the measurement increments, weights and volumes preferred by particular civilisations. In most instances the final, officially accepted figure, as to what constituted the national standard in use during a particular epoch, is based upon averages.
Scientists have, for example, weighed large batches of coins, such as the Roman Silver Denarius, (1/50th of a Roman pound) to arrive at an average weight for the Roman "pound".


The main book of reference in this study will be Ancient Metrology, by Donald Lee Lenzen, published in 1989, and it comes highly recommended for those engaged in comparative analysis of ancient standards.
Mr. Lenzen devoted ten years to his study of systems of metrology used by the great civilisations and gathered clues from widely diverse sources including artefacts and ancient quotations. He also took a fully scientific approach to his work and based his final conclusions on measurement, weight and volume averages. In a few instances fully intact sets of weights, which had formerly been the official "standards" for an entire advanced civilisation or merchant assayers, have survived and can be used to indicate the standard.

This study will show that with very minute, visually undetectable and reasonable, modification to "official" length and volume "averages" or an adjustment of "a few grains" to a "weight standard" artefact, one is delivered into a stream/ progression of numerical values that relate to astronomy, navigation, etc.
The original "grain" weight found in sets of weights was based upon a wheat seed. Counts of barleycorns were also used for reference to the grain weight of the Hebrew gold Shekel, whereas carob beans became the medium, at some latter era, for "jeweller's weights" (carats) in weighing out quantities of precious gems and gold.
Grain weight, as a set ancient method for arriving at a weight standard, was derived from counted quantities of healthy wheat seeds and the original stone or metal "scale weights", used by ancient traders, merchants or official assayers were first determined by counting out exact numbers of wheat seeds. Although some Mediterranean gold coins, such as the heavy and light Hebrew Shekels were also compared to specific numbers of "barleycorns", their measured weights show implicitly that they were, first and foremost, based upon specific numbers of wheat grains…consistent with all other weight systems of the ancient Mediterranean.


The process of unravelling the ancient Mediterranean/ European metrological standards of Weights, Volumes, Area and Length measurements is daunting, and no-one has been wholly successful in accomplishing this task thus far. In order to succeed we have to try to put ourselves into the mindset of the ancient mathematicians. We have to try to double-guess what they were trying to accomplish in choosing the difficult numbers that they deliberately incorporated into their Weights and Measures standards.

Some years ago, in conversation with a friend, Tom Brown, former director of Borderland Research Foundation, he made an incisive, but limiting observation about many modern scientists. His generalised estimation of them was that they 'were good at measuring things'. Tom's somewhat sardonic comment was suggesting that the, "what you see is what you get", clinical approach of many scientists doesn't necessarily translate into gaining a full understanding of what's going on. More lateral thinkers, using the precise, cold, clinical facts accrued by scientists, often have a better chance of making a correct, overall evaluation of the evidence. So, with a little sprinkle of lateral thinking let's assess known facts about ancient systems of metrology using the following terms of reference:

* Footnote: 933120 is an excellent example of an abundant number in ancient usage, being 28 × 36 × 5.


A functioning, flourishing civilisation must have a traditional "staple" food source to ensure its survival. For Eastern civilisations the staple was predominantly rice; for North and South American civilisations it was corn and for Mediterranean/ European civilisations it was wheat. The civilisations that based their survival on grain staples grew a variety of seed grasses, but wheat remained, far and away, the most important. The warlike Romans conquered the ancient Mediterranean and further afield using wheat to nourish their armies.

The weight standards for ancient Mediterranean civilisations were based on the accumulative counts of wheat grains. When a standard was being created or replaced/ restored the official assayer for the nation would design the standard around a specific number of wheat grains and count out quantities of "healthy wheat" seeds. The largest weights created, nation-by-nation, which are generally referred to as "Talents" by modern archaeologists, would be in a precise ratio to smaller weights within the selfsame family of weights.

The weight's standards for one Mediterranean/ European nation would also be in a perfect ratio to those of another and there was a general sharing of standards between civilisations, extending back for thousands of years.
This methodology, in creating a standard, is about as perfect as can be achieved…to base a system of weights on the smallest common denominator of one grain of wheat. The wheat seed is reasonably consistent in size and weight, year-by-year and crop-by-crop within traditional growing regions like the Mediterranean.

When one considers the grain weights found in the "Talents" (and reduced expressions thereof) between nations, the realisation comes that the numbers chosen by the official assayers are very cumbersome. It was the prerogative or option of the assayers to make the counts simple, based upon nice big round numbers that reduced by ½ or ¼ to the smaller weights within the standard. This was, however, never the case, which compels us to ask the question, "why does the standard contain such a difficult set of numbers?" There was, very obviously, another element for consideration encoded into the standards, but what could that be?

The same argument can be applied to ancient lengths or volumes. There was a base increment shared by the nations, which played the role of the lowest common denominator for lengths. By comparing the wheat grain number counts that occur within the "grain weights" standards we are able to see what specific numbers were important to the assayers. As it turns out, the most viable base increment of length (converting to cubic capacities) is the traditional "British standard inch".

Archaeological evidence of the last 150-years has shown that the British standard inch and foot measurements are very old and will fit the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, as well as other significant edifices, such as the Greek Parthenon, perfectly. Although the Greeks used up to four variable foot measures, ranging from 12.096, 12.15, 12.16512 or 12.6 inches, respectively, for various calculation functions, they all stem from the same inch as was carried to Britain and France by as early as 5000 BC. Volume standards of the ancient Mediterranean are based on this sized cubic inch and, without this base increment, the intended codes encrypted into a vessel are obscured and unrecognisable. Although ancient civilisations used a far wider range of measurement increments than those that survived into modern times, they are all based upon the ancient inch, which in recent eras has become known as the British Standard inch.


Figure 1: The pyramids of Giza provided standards for many nations simultaneously and commissioned representatives from satellite or distant nations could, periodically, come to Egypt to check the integrity of their national standards and have new "master sets" issued.

It is a common practice that Weights, Measures and Volumes "master sets" are always housed within temperature controlled environments. This ensures that latter made duplicate sets, based upon the master set, can be fashioned to very precise tolerances. In the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid a blocked up vent shaft was found. Once this was cleared the dank air of many centuries dissipated quickly and the room assumed a temperature that never varied, summer or winter, night or day.

Each of the pyramids of the Giza Plateau had large stone "coffers" or boxes in them, which were erroneously classified by archaeologists as stone coffins for dead Pharaohs. The fact that there has never been any evidence of burials within the pyramids has not diminished this untenable theory and it continues to be represented as the purpose for the magnificent pyramid edifices. A far more plausible explanation for the "coffers is that they were containers for master sets of weights and volume vessels, as well as measuring rods. These were kept in perfectly controlled environments within the pyramids. Each pyramid encoded particular, unique information and the standards housed within each would have been dedicated to the linear and geometric attributes of that particular pyramid, both internally and externally. All of this activity was going on many millennia before the Dynastic period of Egypt and the pyramids are far older than they've been represented to be*.

During the course of this study there will be constant reference and comparison to the pyramids of the Giza Plateau, as everything found in the Weights, Volumes and Measurement Standards of Mediterranean nations has a pedigree back to these magnificent structures. The length increments of each nation mentioned herein are perfectly divisible into the dimensions of the pyramids, whether we're talking about Greek feet, Roman feet, Assyrian cubits, Hebrew cubits or the ancient increments of Europe. The Giza Plateau, as well as other centres around Egypt, once represented the international Bureau of Standards.

*Footnote: Were it not for the poorly executed forgeries of inscriptions by Col. Richard Howard-Vyse in 1837, the name Khufu or Cheops would never have been associated with the Great Pyramid. With time and funding running out, Col. Richard Howard-Vyse had to make a big discovery in the Great Pyramid...and it, conveniently, ended up being the name of Khufu in a cavity above the King's Chamber. Unfortunately the name was rendered "Khnem-Khuf," which we now know means, "the brother of Khufu". Parts of the inscriptions or various cartouches were written in a late era hieratic script, which did not appear in Egypt until about 2000 years after the hieroglyphic writing form contemporary to Khufu's time. Col. Richard Howard-Vyse got his funding and the chair at a British University... and we got lumbered with pyramids built far too late. The Pharaoh Khufu or Cheops is known to have excavated around the ancient Sphinx, which was buried up to it's neck in sand in his day. Geologist, John Anthony West and others have dated the Sphinx to a period well before 12000 B.C. Large vertical ruts in the Sphinx were done by water erosion and there's been no significant rainfall in the region since about 12000 BC. The Great Pyramid is thought to be contemporary with or built a little after the Sphinx, which probably served the function of providing the "reduced level" surveying line or benchmark for all of the structures of the Giza Plateau.


The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the known lengths , volumes, weights and areas, used as "standards" by many "cousin" nations of the early Mediterranean and Europe are exact fractions and factors of values found upon the 3 main pyramids of the Giza (Gizeh) Plateau of Egypt. In the course of this study decimal numbers are used for convenience and some values will display long tails of decimals, which would have been absolutely impossible to visually mark or detect in a length or weight standard. Examples of this will include numbers such as 29.53125-days, used to describe a lunar month (708.75-hours). It must be realised that the values expressed have to be stated at the degree of precision shown, as they are, simply, a decimal form of a fraction or factor. A number like 933.12 is simply indicating 1/10000th of a foundation value of 933120 (the number of seeds of grain in a Sumerian/ Babylonian talent weight). No values can be "rounded", as they are only whole number, foundation values rendered as a smaller division of itself.

Senior lecturer and mathematician, Professor Bruce Moon of Chrischurch, New Zealand, has suggested that a section of this study be devoted to tables, showing the ancient foundation values and how they reduce by fractions and factors. Professor Moon, quite correctly, contends that the ancient mathematicians would have worked in fractions. It is quite obvious, in viewing the array of values used, that these fractions were in special number families, such as 11, 7 or 6. It is the theory of this researcher that ancient mathmaticians manipulated numbers in every conceivable way, including decimal form. They used a far more expanded set of measurements than any of our modern nations inherited and also had multiples of compass systems based upon 360, 630, 640 and 660-degrees, respectively. These systems were used in both navigation or for staying abreast of sun or moon periods, etc., within a celestial cycle.


A solar year is 365.2422-days and a lunar year is 354.3643519-days. The lunar nutation cycle, where the moon goes to a position called major standstill, returns to minor standstill, then returns to major standstill again, takes 6798.36-days or 18.61329277 solar years. The Earth is 24902.44523-miles in equatorial circumference. The polar circumference is 24816.55084-miles. The cycle of the Precession of the Equinoxes takes 25776-years to complete.

So, with these horrible numbers to contend with, provided that at some stage one's sciences or generations of careful observation have produced the near values to these numbers, how do scientists turn this "beastly" set of difficult values into an ordered, integrated and functional mathematical system?

The solar year can be called 365.25-days, which is a nice rounded number equating to 8766 hours.
The lunar year can be called 354.375-days, which is 8505 hours.
If a calendar is produced that runs for 7 solar years, then that equates to 2556.75-days.
If the lunar period within that calendar runs for 7.2 years, then that equates to 2551.5-days.
If a measurement rule is produced, based upon 5.25 feet, then 487 X 5.25 = 2556.75 feet/ days.
The same measurement rule can be used for the moon and 486 X 5.25 = 2551.5 feet/ days.
If an auspicious mistletoe culling ceremony is performed on the 6th day after the calendar commences at the Winter Solstice, then the solar and lunar cycles can end on the same day 7 solar years later.
If the world is described as 12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X 1.2-miles, then that's 24883.2-miles...only 18.8 miles short.
If one wishes to navigate using an "11" series of numbers, those miles can be 5280 feet each.
If one wishes to navigate using a "6&7" series of numbers, those miles can be 5250 feet each.
A wonderful little window of opportunity arises when a straight-line diameter, using an "11" number is converted to a "6" based circle using PI @ 3.141818182. Therefore 550 X 3.141818182 = 1728, which is divisible by 360-degrees.
A wonderful little window of opportunity arises when a straight-line diameter, using a "6&7" number is converted to an "11" based circle, using PI @ 22/7. Therefore 525 X 3.142857143 = 1650, which is divisible by 660-degrees.
A wonderful little window of opportunity arises when 1/7th of a 360-degree circle (51.42857143-degrees) is multiplied by 1.75 = 90. A 630-degree compass will work very well using "7" series values.
If the cycle of the Precession of the Equinoxes is described as 25920-years, then that's 72 X 360.
If the lunar nutation cycle is described as 6804-days, then that's 19.2 lunar years, which is nicely divisible by "6&7".

And that's about it really; the rest is just fraction expressions of these major, final numbers, divided down into very small increments of time or length. The small discrepancies of time were easily corrected, periodically, by such events as observing the day of the equinox or solstice and the insertion of a few intercalary days at the end of a 7-year calendar period. The discrepancies in the "size of the Earth" standards, as opposed to the "true" size, were so small as to be negligible, especially when sailing regionally around the Mediterranean. The simple mathematical systems made navigational plotting very easy.

There was little need for much "original and highly innovative thinking", as the whole mathematical parcel had been fully thought out at some unknown, remote epoch. The "standard" numbers were universally taught, preserved and shared by all of the cousin nations of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean for millenniums. This is seen to be the case when one studies the dimensions of structures and artefacts from these regions, which date to remote epochs.

As stated, for convenience, the values shown herein are rendered in decimal form. They can however be displayed as whole numbers and fractions and this would, undoubtedly, have been the form in which they were used, calculated or spoken of. For anyone wishing to convert these numbers to fractions see:

For converting these numbers to factors or other mathematical expressions, see the range of conversion calculators at:


The Great Pyramid had an intended or design base length of 756 feet, a face slope angle of 51.84-degrees, a flat top 44 feet square at a vertical height of 453.6 feet, a side diagonal length from the base paving slab level to the edge of the altar floor of 576 feet, a "symbolic" height (including the non existent capstone) of 480 feet, a "symbolic" diagonal side length of 611.7894615 feet (378 feet ÷ 51.84 COS). The ratio of its base length (756 feet) to its true height (453.6 feet) was 1.6666666 to 1 (the same ratio encountered between a hypotenuse and an adjacent in a 3,4,5 triangle. If its base length (756 feet) is divided by 1.25 (the ratio between the hypotenuse and opposite in a 3,4,5 triangle) the value achieved is 604.8 feet (the perimeter value of the Great Pyramid @ 756 feet per side = 3024 feet...1/2 of 6048 feet, which value represented 1-minute of arc under the Great Pyramid's Earth equatorial assignment). The dimensions given allowed the Great Pyramid's coding to be read according to a combined "6&7" series of numbers, founded upon the value 42. As will be demonstrated, the known length standards of all ancient cousin civilisations of the Mediterraean Basin will perfectly fit into these dimensions. These include: a Greek mile of 5250 feet, a stadia of 630 feet, a short stadia of 525 feet, a reed of 10.5 feet, an Assyrian Royal Cubit of 25.2 inches, A Hebrew/ Celtic Royal Cubit of 21 inches, an Egyptian Royal Cubit of 20.61818182-inches, Hebrew cubits of 17.5 & 16.8 inches, Greek feet of 12.6 inches, Roman feet of 11.666666 and 11.664 inches, etc. Areas vould be read in pyramid acres of 28800 square feet (ref. Herodotus).

The Great Pyramid had a "symbolic" length of 756.25 feet (756 & 1/4th feet). This allowed the pyramid to be read in an "11" or "11&6" series of values. It is from this calibration that the league (16500 feet), mile (5280 feet), furlong or furrowlong (660 feet), chain (66 feet), rod/ perch (16.5 feet), fathom (originally 5.5 feet...persisting as the merchant navy fathom in Britain) and link (7.92 inches), were derived. Areas could be read in British acres of 45360 square feet.

The Great Pyramid could be symbolically read in pure PHI values (1.6180339 to 1). In a literal sense, the Great Pyramid was built to comply to "rounded PHI" dimensions and its 756 feet length is 560 increments of 16.2-inches (16 & 1/5th inches). By symbolically viewing 1.62 inches as representing 1.6180339 inches, the dimensions were converted to PHI based proportions. Therefore: the side diagonal length from the base paving slabs to the symbolic apex, derived by 378 ÷ 51.84 COS = 611.7894615 feet, could be rendered as 378 feet X 1.6180339 (PHI) = 611.6168142 feet for a diference in the reading of only about 2 inches.

The Khafre Pyramid's intended design length is 15/16ths of that of the Great Pyramid. Therefore: 756 ÷ 16 = 47.25 feet X 15 = 708.75 feet. The Khafre Pyramid was built to code lunar cycle values and was fully a "pyramid of the moon". It differered in its face degree angle from the Great Pyramid, inasmuch as it was built to the 3,4,5 triangle principle. Half its base length is 354.375 feet (354 + 1/3rd of 8...or 1/8th of 2835 feet). The sum of 354.375-days is the duration of 1 lunar year, made up of 12 lunar months of 29.53125-days or 708.75 hours. The 3,4,5 method by which Khafre Pyramid was built used a base increment of 118.125 feet for its design formula. Half Khafre's base length was 118.125 feet X 3 (354.375 feet), its height was 118.125 feet X 4 (472.5 feet) and its diagonal face slope was 118.125 feet X 5 (590.625 feet). The Octagon of Newark, Ohio earth embankment complex in the USA was 2835 feet long, from the alcove at the front of the altar, extending at an azimuth angle of 51.84-degrees, to the outer extremity position of the end gate. The distance of 2835 feet was the perimeter value of Khafre Pyramid, or 118.125 feet X 24. The design width of the inner Avebury Henge complex of England was 1181.25 feet from the rear faces of the Station Stones at the WSW and ENE gateways at an azimuth angle of 68.04-degrees (There are 6804 days in the lunar nutation cycle...or 500 X 68.04-inches in the perimeter value of the Khafre Pyramid).

The Menkaure Pyramid is 356.4 feet per side or 1425.6 feet for the whole perimeter (259.2 fathoms). It was built to an "11" series or "6&11" series of numbers, used in navigation. Like the Great Pyramid, it was dual coded to be read in "rounded PHI" (1.62) or ""pure PHI" (1.6180339) increments and had a design face slope angle of 51.84-degrees. The Pyramid was abandonned to the creeping desert before it was fully finished in pre-Dynastic times and a later Pharaoh of the Dynastic period attempted to have the top section finished in inferior mud-brick. The slumping or rounding out of the top apex section has led to a lesser height and archaeologists assign erroneous face degree angles to the edifice accordingly. Under its pure PHI assignment, the length of the diagonal face side was meant to be 288 feet and convey the same coded relationship as "Y" Holes Circle and the Aubrey Circle at Stonehenge.


Let's look at a fairly recent civilisation enjoying its "golden age" only 3000 years ago…the Hebrews who occupied the dangerous bridgehead to 3 continents, now referred to as Israel. There is considerable confusion and interchanging of terms related to the Hebrews, who are generally categorised under an umbrella term as Jewish or Israelites. The fact is that there were some Israelite Hebrews and one tribe within the 12 major Israelite tribes was "of the House of Judah". By about 500 B.C. most of the tribes had moved away from the region after engaging in endless wars, being conquered and enduring the rigours of captivities. Whereas the vast majority of the Israelites sought refuge in Europe amongst cousin peoples, the Tribe of Judah and a small contingent from the Tribe of Benjamin opted to remain living on that dangerous piece of real estate until 70 A.D., when the Roman's, under Titus, exiled the remnant survivors of the Jewish revolt.

We know that during the Late Hebrew golden age of about 1000-900 BC there was considerable maritime activity from the Hebrew/ Phoenician ports at Tyre, Lebanon and that "round ships" were plying thriving trade routes, one of which extended to the Great Lakes* region of North America. Large quantities of copper were being mined in North America and brought back for refinement in Israel, mostly at Enzion Geber. This shows an advanced ability to navigate to distant ports across the Atlantic.

*Footnote: "Around the northern shore of Lake Superior there are 'about 5000 ancient copper mine workings, from which an estimated 500 million pounds of copper were removed...and there is no evidence of what became of it'. This copper appears to have been shipped away from North America.

At Enzion Geber on the sea-coast of Southern Israel (approachable either from the Red Sea or from the Eastern base of the Mediterranean, where ore could be rafted over the "Reed Sea", are the remains of, 'the biggest smelting installations of the ancient East...consisting of a regular ultramodern furnace with a system of air channels, chimney flues and openings...the most interesting things were casting moulds and a vast quantity of copper slag'. Werner Keller dates this great ancient blast furnace to within the period of Solomon's reign after 1000 B.C."

The furnace system used is comparable to the modern Bessemer system (see The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel Found, by Steven M. Collins, pgs. 26-28). Similar Phoenician mining and smelting operations appear to have been carried out at Sarina Beach in Western Australia, where a ancient large mining port, mine workings and slag heaps have been located.

Let's now consider how the Hebrews were coding principles of navigation…amongst other things, into their volume capacities.

Donald L Lenzen provides substantiated reference to the fact that the Hebrews had 3 liquid volume standards, which were the Desert Standard, the Jerusalem Standard and the Sepphoris Standard. These are documented in rabbinic texts. Here are Lenzen's estimates (left), based upon exhaustive assessments related to the cubic capacities of ancient, unbroken or reconstructed Hebrew vessels. One unbroken museum example, found at Qumran, has writing on it to indicate its capacity in Hebrew Log and Seah measures. All volumes are shown in cubic inches.


1 Cor…….22395.10 cubic inches equals,
10 Bath….2239.51 cubic inches, or
60 Hin……373.25 cubic inches, or
180 Cab…124.41 cubic inches, or
720 Log…31.10 cubic inches.


1 Cor…….22394.88 cubic inches equals,
10 Bath….2239.488 cubic inches, or
60 Hin…..373.248 cubic inches, or
180 Cab…124.416 cubic inches, or
720 Log…31.104 cubic inches.

The Sepphoris liquid volume measures positively code the true equatorial circumference of the Earth, according to the Parthenon platform standard of 24883.2 miles (12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X 1.2). Let's consider the numbers:

Footnote: Professor Bruce Moon, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, in his assessment of the foregoing paragraph, suggests stating it in the following (less decimally defined) terms:

"The Parthenon platform standard value for the Earth's equatorial circumference was 24883.2 miles (125/10). The Great Pyramid value is 247419/11 miles (123×9×7×5/22). A little calculation shows that these figures are in the ratio 176/175.

"The Great Pyramid perimeter is 3024 ft (122×7×3) and its diagonal face angle 51.84º.
(123×3/100) Their numerical ratio is thus 175/3.
"Since the numerical value of the Cor (in cubic inches) is 125×9/100, its ratio to the Parthenon equatorial circumference of the earth (in miles) is 9:10. Expressing the circumference in feet, this ratio is 3/17600. For the Great Pyramid circumference, the ratio is thus 3/17500 (12/7000). Again, a Cor of 22394.88cu.ins =12.96cu.ft. [1cu.ft =1728(123)cu.ins] As an Egyptian Royal Cubit is 1.728(12/10)3 ft(20.736ins), 22394.88ft is thus equal to 12960cubits."

Note: a small 2, 3, or 5 in the foregoing paragraph means "to the power of".


1 Cor……18662.58 cubic inches equals
10 Bath…1866.25 cubic inches, or
60 Hin…..311.04 cubic inches, or
180 Cab…103.68 cubic inches, or
720 Log…25.92 cubic inches.


1 Cor…….18662.4 cubic inches equals
10 Bath….1866.24 cubic inches, or
60 Hin……311.04 cubic inches, or
180 Cab….103.68 cubic inches, or
720 Log….25.92 cubic inches.

Lenzen notes that the Sepphoris standard exceeded the Jerusalem standard and attributes this fact to rabbinic writings. The ratio is 6:5.
Again, the Jerusalem standard is perfectly suited for mnemonic reference to the size of the Earth.


1 Cor….15552.15 cubic inches equals
10 Bath….1555.21 cubic inches, or
60 Hin…..259.20 cubic inches, or
180 Cab…86.40 cubic inches, or
720 Log…21.60 cubic inches.


1 Cor…..15552 cubic inches equals
10 Bath…1555.20 cubic inches, or
60 Hin….259.20 cubic inches, or
180 Cab…86.40 cubic inches, or
720 Log…21.60 cubic inches.

Again, Donald L Lenzen's estimates sit to the left and are virtually no different to a widely used mathematical progression of antiquity. This set of "corrected" numbers can be used for mnemonic recall of the size of the Earth under the "true" and Great Pyramid standards.


The Hebrew liquid volume values (superficially) relate to either the "true" size of the Earth, based upon the Parthenon platform code, or the navigational size of the Earth, which breaks down very fluidly into degrees, minutes and seconds of arc (Great Pyramid standard). The most convenient way of measuring distance upon the open sea was in leagues, miles or furlongs and this "11" series was encoded into the Hebrew Sepphoris dry volume standard.


1 Homer…..28476.00 cubic inches equals
10 Ephah….2847.60 cubic inches, or
30 Seah…..949.20 cubic inches, or
180 Cab….158.20 cubic inches, or
720 Log….39.55 cubic inches.


1 Homer….28512 cubic inches equals
10 Ephah….2851.20 cubic inches., or
30 Seah…..950.40 cubic inches, or
180 Cab….158.4 cubic inches, or
720 Log….39.6 cubic inches.

To arrive at his estimates, Donald L Lenzen refers to the capacity of an unbroken jar located at Qumran, which was inscribed, "Two Seah and 7 Logs". The official capacity of the jar is deemed to be 2175.52 cubic inches. According to my "corrected" reckoning the capacity should yield 2178 cubic inches, so the margin of difference is 2.48 cubic inches shortfall in the artefact's measured capacity, making the vessel 99.886134 true
The correction seems reasonable, inasmuch as a Log capacity of 39.55 cubic inches will not provide any coded value that works in a mathematical progression, whereas a Log of 39.6 works in a dynamic way. We know that the Hebrews, along with their much scattered cousin peoples in surrounding countries, were working to precise ratios and coding significant, meaningful numbers into their volume vessels. Let's see what very useful information a Log of 39.6 cubic inches would provide, as 720 Logs of 39.6 cubic inches create a Homer of 28512 cubic inches.

Let's go and check what the Greeks were up to with their volume standards.


Essentially, the Greek volume system is simply the Egyptian system in reduced ratio. Lenzen mentions two "capacity marked" earthenware vessels found at the bottom of a well at the Acropolis. One was marked as a public standard Khous and bore the official "owl" stamp of Athens. The second item was an official water clock, marked as two Khous. From this and other evidence he reconstructs his estimate of the Greek volume system in the following way, as shown to the left.


1 Metretes….2332.82 cubic inches equals:
12 Chous……194.40 cubic inches, or
144 Cotyle….16.20 cubic inches, or
576 Oxybaphon…4.05 cubic inches, or
864 Cyathus….2.70 cubic inches.


1 Metretes…2332.8 cubic inches equals:
12 Chous…..194.4 cubic inches, or
144 Cotyle…16.2 cubic inches, or
576 Oxybaphhon…4.05 cubic inches, or
864 Cyathus…2.70 cubic inches.



Medimnus…3110.43 cubic inches equals:
6 Hecteus….518.40 cubic inches, or
48 Choenix….64.80 cubic inches, or
192 Coytle…16.20 cubic inches, or
1152 Cyathus…2.70 cubic inches.


1 Medimnus…3110.4 cubic inches, equals:
6 Hecteus…518.40 cubic inches, or
48 Choenix…64.80 cubic inches, or
192 Coytle…16.20 cubic inches, or
1152 Cyathus…2.70 cubic inches.

The Greek volumes are in a perfect ratio to the Egyptian volumes, which meant that trade between the Greeks and Egyptians was reasonably simple Let's look at the Greek volumes as they relate to the Egyptian Theban.



1 Metretes…2332.8 cubic inches equals:
12 Chous…..194.4 cubic inches, or
144 Cotyle…16.2 cubic inches, or
576 Oxybaphhon…4.05 cubic inches, or
864 Cyathus…2.70 cubic inches.


1 Medimnus…3110.4 cubic inches, equals:
6 Hecteus…518.40 cubic inches, or
48 Choenix…64.80 cubic inches, or
192 Coytle…16.20 cubic inches, or
1152 Cyathus…2.70 cubic inches.

Thee Greek volumes, like those of the Hebrews, provide codes for remembering the size of the Earth under 3 equatorial systems.


Lenzen shows two forms of volume measurement under the Roman system, which relate to liquid and dry measures.


1 Amphora…1493.00 cubic inches equals:
2 Urna…746.50 cubic inches, or
8 Congius…186.62 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius…31.10 cubic inches.


1 Amphora…1492.992 cubic inches equals:
2 Urna………746.496 cubic inches, or
8 Congius……186.624 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius…31.104 cubic inches.

The Roman liquid volumes show an astonishing degree of sophistication, inasmuch as they are all simple ratio reductions on the true equatorial size of the Earth. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Hebrews and Britons seem to have been preoccupied in making their "volumes" comply with the size of the Earth in miles of 5280 feet. The number that ancient cousin peoples chose to represent the true equatorial size of the Earth was 24883.2-miles and they encoded this value, in various ways, from the Mediterranean Basin to New Zealand.

Apart from the ½ value of 24883.2 (12441.6) being encoded, in feet, on multiple occasions within the Waitapu Valley of Northland, New Zealand, it is also encoded, in reduced ratio, into the platform upon which the Greek Parthenon of Athens is built. The Parthenon length, anciently, represented 1 second of arc for the world and was measured by Penrose to be very close to 101.376 feet. Lenzen suggests 101.375 feet. Mathematical progression evidence or the logical use of numbers would suggest 101.376 feet, culminating in the 24883.2-mile value… Therefore, 101.376 feet (one second of Earth arc) X 60 = 6082.56 feet (one minute of arc) X 60 = 364953.6 feet (1-degree of arc) X 360 = 131383296 feet (divided by 5280 to render the length in miles) = 24883.2 miles. This total would be very easy to remember when using the formula, 12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X 1.2.

The coding contained within the Roman dry measure volume is even more remarkable mathematically and codes the size of the Earth under 3 systems. Despite the fact that the Parthenon platform gives a true reading of 1 second of arc for the world, this was not the preferred system for navigation around the world. The most versatile system, used universally by the cousin nations, was based upon the Great Pyramid's rendition of ½ a minute of arc under two complimentary systems. Please read: within this website, a partial synopsis of which is.

Several formulas showed how to calculate the circumference of the Earth or 1-degree of arc, based upon the Great Pyramid's dimensions and angles.

This Earth size value (24741.81818 miles works exceedingly well when doing sexagesimal calculations and our ancient Sumerian compass system (set to 360 degrees, with 60 minutes per degree and 60 seconds per minute) is fully sexagesimal.

The Great Pyramid was literally 756 feet long and complied to many increments of measurement within that length, which were based upon the numbers 6 & 7. Everything from Hebrew/ Celtic Royal Cubits of 21-inches and their "common" counterparts of 18 inches would fit snugly. Smaller fractions of the Greek Stadium and mile values fitted this length perfectly as well.

Using the same logical sequence to produce an Earth circumference value under the "11" system we have:

It was seemingly essential for ancient navigators to measure their linear progress across oceans in terms of these 11 series values, hence the league or fathom have always been nautical terms. There's a very important reason for working in 11 series, straight line distances travelled, as they create very convenient relationships with the PI ratio (where a circle's circumference is always 3.1416 times larger than its diameter). One could, equally, work fluidly in "7" series increments for navigation, like the Greek mile of 5250 feet (see within this website).


Donald Lenzen refers to a system in place within Syria, which was based upon the legal burden that could be carried by an ass in Egypt, as well as the whole Roman Empire. This was limited to 200 Roman pounds or the cubic capacity of 20 Roman Congius of liquid. By comparative analysis of several historical references, Lenzen was able to compute the Syrian system to the following close values:


1 Metretes……3732.51 cubic inches equals:
2 Maris……….1866.25 cubic inches, or
12 Choes……...311.04 cubic inches, or
48 Choenices…77.76 cubic inches.


1 Metretes…….3732.48 cubic inches equals:
2 Maris………..1866.24 cubic inches, or
12 Choes………311.04 cubic inches, or
48 Choenices….77.76 cubic inches.

The system used in Syria is very comparable to other systems used by the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. The Syrian Metretes is the same as the Egyptian Artaba and 1.0368 times greater than the Babylonian/ Sumerian Artaba @ 3600 cubic inches. The 1.0368 ratio is in mnemonic homage to the 1036.8 miles per hour that the Earth rotates…..24883.2 miles ÷ 24 hours = 1036.8 MPH. A Metretes @ 3732.48 cubic inches = 2.16 cubic feet and provides a mathematical progression related to the Precession of the Equinoxes. It also codes the diameter of the moon @ 2160-miles.


Lenzen's scientific evaluation of the Roman dry measures is as follows:


1 Amphora…..1898.4 cubic inches equals:
3 Modius…….632.80 cubic inches, or
32 Choenix…..59.32 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius…39.55 cubic inches or
96 Hemina……19.77 cubic inches.


1 Amphora…….1900.8 cubic inches equals:
3 Modius………633.6 cubic inches, or
32 Choenix…….59.4 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius……39.6 cubic inches, or
96 Hemina……...19.8 cubic inches.


The city of Alexandria was established by Alexander the Great in 332 BC as a Greek centre in Egypt and grew in less than a century to be larger than Carthage. In became an international city, as well as a Mediterranean centre of commerce and shipping... with a diverse assortment of foreign residents. Alexandria passed formally into Roman jurisdiction in 80 BC, although it had been under Roman influence for 100-years before that time. It was at Alexandria that Julius Caesar had his liaisons with Cleopatra in 47 BC. Being a port city, second only to Rome in influence and standing, its weights, measures and volume standards are very important to consider.

As an aid in arriving at the Alexandrian standard for cubic capacity, Donald L Lenzen quotes an historical text, which say's, 'The Cubus was a vessel, the sides of which were formed by six equal squares having each of its sides a foot long, the solid contents of the cube was equal to the amphora' (Rhem. Fann. De Pond, & C.V. 59-62).
This rendition relates to the Roman foot of 11.664 inches.
Lenzen gives the following values for the Alexandrian measures of capacity:


1 Amphora…..1592.540659 cubic inches, equals
2 Urna……….796.270329 cubic inches, or
8 Congius……199.0675882 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius…33.177930 cubic inches


1 Amphora…..1584 cubic inches, equals
2 Urna……….792 cubic inches, or
8 Congius……198 cubic inches, or
48 Sextarius…33 cubic inches.

To arrive at his estimate of what constituted an ancient Alexandrian Amphora volume, Lenzen relied upon the liquid weight of an Alexandrian Talent. I believe that the literal "Cubus" volume gives a far closer reading, based upon a Roman foot of 11.664 inches. This means 11.664 X 11.664 X 11.664 = 1586.874323 cubic inches. This is only a 2.87 cubic inch increase on the 1584 cubic inch figure and anyone commenting on the volume of an Amphora would, quite reasonably, speak of it as a Roman cubic foot. Whereas the 1592.5 value, proposed by Donald Lenzen, has no significance amongst the parcel of ancient, special numbers, the 1584 value is very dynamic and was much used. Let's put it through its paces to see what it can do.


Lenzen speaks of 8 Egyptian vases which had their capacities recorded as 400 Hons. After measurement of all vessels the mean average was found to be 29.2 cubic inches. He describes another set of unmarked vessels achieving a mean average of 29.1 cubic inches and from that deduces an overall mean average, for all 17 vessels, of 29.15 cubic inches. His assessment of the Egyptian volume designated a Hon was then adjusted by him to 29.16 in consideration of a relationship he felt existed between 300 Hons and a close approximation to the Egyptian Royal Cubit measurement.
Again, Lenzen's estimated figures for the Egyptian volumes are shown to the left and comply perfectly to much used codes of antiquity:


1 Theban… 11664.00 cubic inches, equals:
10 Besha… 1166.400 cubic inches, or
100 Honnu…. 116.64 cubic inches, or
400 Hon… 29.16 cubic inches.


1 Theban…..11664.00 cubic inches, equals:
10 Beshu…..1166.40 cubic inches, or
100 Honnu…116.64 cubic inches, or
400 Hon……29.16 cubic inches.

An Egyptian Theban cube vessel could be fabricated, based upon lunar code numbers associated with the nutation cycle of 6804-days. The value of 3 sides of the Great Pyramid is 2268 feet and this number, in reduced ratio size, was the primary contributor to the Egyptian standard of capacity. A Theban @ 11664 cubic inches = 6.75 cubic feet and provides a mathematical progression related to the lunar cycle.

From these numbers it is quite easy to detect that the Egyptians were using the Theban, Beshu, Honnu and Hon for mnemonic reference to periods of the moon within the Sabbatical calendar system. Primary numbers used for tracking lunar periods within the Sabbatical cycle were 48.6, 40.5, 32.4, 16.2, as well as 5.25.

Now that the Theban "trivia" has been dealt with, let's get into the real stuff…navigation.


The most primary functions of the Theban, Beshu, Honnu and Hon were to act as "circumference codes" in navigation. They were for remembering the size of the Earth and designed to provide suitable "linear codes" for straight-line voyages that converted to sexagesimal circumferences for degree angle readings through 360-degrees.


Donald L Lenzen used "weight" clues to estimate the capacities of Sumerian/ Babylonian volumes, referred to in historical literature. Using an ancient ritual text preserved in the Louvre Museum, he was able to reconstruct the sequence of various volume measures. He estimated the volume of the ancient Qa, based upon a statement related to a "Sutu of 10 Minas". The Babylonian Mina was a unit of weight and a Sutu was made up of 10 Qa, so the volume of a "liquid" Qa was, anciently, considered to be the grain weight of a Mina. This was probably a merchant "close approximation", in much the same way that a "Cubus" volume closely approximated the weight of an Alexandrian Amphora of liquid.


1 Archane……128995.793 cubic inches, equals:
6 Homer…… @ 21599.298 cubic inches, or
36 Artaba….. @ 3583.216 cubic inches, or
216 Sutu…… @ 597.202 cubic inches, or
2160 Qa……. @ 59.720 cubic inches.


1 Archane…… 129600 cubic inches, equals:
6 Homer…… @ 21600 cubic inches, or
36 Artaba….. @ 3600 cubic inches, or
216 Sutu…… @ 600 cubic inches, or
2160 Qa……. @ 60 cubic inches.

Obviously the civilisations that (according to historical accounts) gave us the sexagesimal system for navigation and 360-degrees in a circle were working to that number rather than 358.3216 for their Artaba volume. Lenzen's estimate for the cubic capacity of a Qa is 59.72 cubic inches, which is a marginal shortfall on 60 cubic inches. His estimate for the weight of a Babylonian Mina is based upon a count of 15102.72 grains. Whereas this number is without meaning within the ancient parcel of useful numbers, a count of 15120 grains would have tremendous significance and relate to the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, complete with its many codes.


Although the cousin nations made their measures either the same or in easily calculable ratios to their trading neighbors, they also required precise formulas for fashioning very individual circular jar or tub vessels for their own coded volumes of preference. The standard formula used universally appears strongly to be:

10 inches ÷ PHI (1.6180339) = 6.18034 inches.

The mathematical relationships shared in common by many civilisations intimates, very strongly, that the 6.18034 inch increment was used universally to calculate the bases for all "official standard" measuring tubs or vessels used by the cousin nations of the ancient Mediterranean Basin. For example:

Any precise volume standard used by the cousin nations could be fashioned with tremendous precision as a circular vessel when the base diameter was in allotments of 6.18034 inches. The vessels could be more squat than tall or vice-versa... it didn't matter, as long as the base retained the 6.18034 inch progression in it's diameter. The same formula, in lesser ratio, could be used to fabricate tumblers, jars or everything down to small cups for use by wine, beer or mead vendors within commercial premises.

The 6.18034 number could also be pressed into service if it was necessary to lay out circular land plots of precise square footage area. For example, an Egyptian Pyramid Acre of 28800 square feet would be a circle with a diameter of 31 X 6.18034 feet. An acre of 43560 square feet (1 furlong X 1 chain) would be a circle of 38.1 X 6.18034 feet.

It seems evident that the old Scottish Ell (37 inches) was, quite simply, 6 X 6.18034 inches originally. The Scottish Ell would work very fluidly in laying out circles of desired square footage area with reasonable calculation ease. This is, undoubtedly, one of the surviving measurements carried from Egypt to France and Britain by about 5000 BC. Half a Scottish ell could be used effectively to make old English bushel barrels or tubs of 2160 cubic inches (1/10th of a Babylonian Homer).

SUMMARY TABLES, supplied by Prof. Bruce Moon.

Corrected Ancient Volume Measures in Cubic Inches for the Major Unit of Each System.

Note: a small 2, 3, 4 or 5 means "to the power of".

Sepphoris liquid.
125 ×9/100
Jerusalem liquid
124 ×9/10
Desert liquid
124 ×3/4
Sepphoris Dry
122 ×18×11
Greek liquid
Greek dry
Roman liquid
125 ×6/1000
Syrian liquid
Roman dry

(Note the predominance of twelve as a factor)

Owing to the large number of common factors in these measures, there are often simple relationships between them, which we obtain by looking at their ratios and cancelling common factors. Examples are the following.

A:B 6:5; B:C 6:5; C:D 6:11; D:E 110:9; E:F 3:4; F:G 25:12; G:H 2:5; I:J 6:5; J:K 11:18; K:L 9:100

A:G 15:1; A:H 6:1; B:E 8:1; B:F 6:1; C:F 5:1; D:I 15:1; D:J 18:1; E:F 3:4; E:K 1:5; F:H 5:6;

[It is interesting to note that though the Greeks were very familiar with ratios and competent in their use, particularly in geometry, they failed to recognize that they are simply numbers - the set of "rational numbers" may all be expressed as ratios of whole numbers. There are some ratios which cannot be so expressed. The ratio of the diagonal to the side of a square (√2) is irrational (a fact which apparently horrified Pythagoras) and so is the golden ratio (1 + √5)/2....Bruce Moon].

Having assessed the volume standards of a selection of Mediterranean civilisations and seeing vivid examples of profound codes lurking in the national capacities, let's now address official "weights" standards of the cousin nations.


Lenzen provides several biblical and historical quotes related to the Hebrew coin weights system, which allow us to establish what the sought after grain weight was. In a quote by Josephus there is reference to the Hebrew Shekel being 'equal to four Athenian Drachmae'. Charles Seltman, author of, Greek Coins fixes the weight of the Drachmae @ 65.59 imperial grains, making the heavy Hebrew shekel close to 262.36 grains. The light Hebrew Shekel was set to half the grain weight of the heavy Shekel, or something in the close proximity of 131.18 grains. Apart from complying to these wheat grain weights, the coins weights were also calculated according to barleycorns, which were about .8 of the size and weight of a wheat seed. There was also use of gerah beans, which were rated as being the equivalent of 16 barleycorns. In the final analysis, however, weight standards were founded upon and resolved back to the weight of wheat, which remained the final authority.
After a comprehensive assessment of all available information, Lenzen provides the following estimates for the Hebrew heavy and light "Desert" standard.


1 Talent……..786600.0 grains equals
60 Mina……..13110.0 grains, or
3000 Shekel…262.2 grains.


1 Talent……..787500.0 grains equals
60 Mina……..13125.0 grains, or
3000 Shekel…262.5 grains.

In Ninevah archaeologists discovered a very large number, inscribed into a clay tablet, which was 195955200000000. This has become known as the Ninevah constant. It's interesting to note that the "true" equatorial circumference of the Earth (24883.2-miles), encoded into such edifices as the Parthenon of Athens, bears a relationship to the Ninevah constant. Therefore: 195955200 (abbreviated) ÷ 24883.2 = 7875, so it's apparent that there's a relationship to the grain weight of the Hebrew heavy Talent as well.

By adjusting the grain count for a shekel by less than ½ a grain, the number derived becomes highly significant and relates, simultaneously, to a "7" number series used by the Greeks and a mathematical progression that relates to the moon or Sabbatical calendar system. Let's see what this progression did under the ancient astronomical/ navigational system.


1 Talent………393300.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………6555.0 grains, or
3000 Shekel….131.10 grains.


1 Talent………393750.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………6562.5 grains, or
3000 Shekel….131.25 grains.

Lenzen states that, 'The Hebrews, like the Babylonians, had two weight standards, one double the weight of the other'. He then provides substantiating ancient quotations or modern scientific assessments in support of his contention. The light Desert Talent is, therefore, simply ½ the value of the heavy Desert Talent. There was, yet, another variation within the system called the Jerusalem standard, which was also divided into "heavy & light" categories. The creation of the Jerusalem standard is said to have occurred around the time of building of the Second Temple, wherein the older Shekel weight was increased by a fifth part. Here's Lenzen's estimate (left) of the heavy Jerusalem standard grain weight.


1 Talent……..943920.0 grains equals:
60 Mina…….15732.0 grains, or
3000 Shekel…314.64 grains.


1 Talent………945000 grains equals:
60 Mina………15750.0 grains, or
3000 Shekel…..315.0 grains.

By adjusting the Shekel weight by one third of a grain, the Hebrew Jerusalem standard springs into life and has great significance. The numbers generated by this grain count are very useful and were fully embraced by the Greeks. A Talent of 945000 grains would contain the following navigational attributes:


1 Talent……… 471960.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………7866.0 grains, or
3000 Shekels…157.32 grains.


1 Talent……… 472500.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………7875 grains, or
3000 Shekels…157.5 grains.

By an adjustment of less than a quarter of a grain on the Shekel weight, estimated by Donald L Lenzen, it makes sense and works fluidly as a dynamic mathematical progression.


Donald L Lenzen quotes ancient historians or modern scholars, where they make reference to (or comparisons between) the Hebrew and Greek coin weights. He also quotes author, Charles Seltman who contends that a Greek Drachma of about 65.59 imperial grains weight was used in Athens, Euboea, Samos, Corinth and Cyene. There was a relationship between the Hebrew and Greek systems, with certain weight denominations, like the Greek Didrachma, being the same as the Hebrew Desert standard, light Shekel.


1 Talent…………..393300.0 grains equals:
60 Mina…………..6555.0 grains, or
3000 Didrachma…131.10 grains, or
6000 Drachma……65.55 grains.


1 Talent…………..393750 grains equals:
60 Mina…………..6562.5 grains, or
3000 Didrachma…131.25 grains, or
6000 Drachma……65.625 grains.

The Greeks displayed a preference toward working in "7" values and had a mile of 5250 feet. This was 30 feet shorter than the so-called British Mile, which worked to an "11" series of numbers. The Greeks also had a Stadium measurement of 630 feet. This was the "7" equivalent to the furlong @ 660 feet and, again, was 30 feet shorter than the furlong.


1 Talent…………..589950.0 grains equals:
60 Mina…………..9832.50 grains, or
3000 Didrachma…196.65 grains, or
6000 Drachma……98.32 grains.


1 Talent………….590625.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………….9843.75 grains, or
3000 Didrachma…196.875 grains, or
6000 Drachma……98.4375 grains.

By adjusting Lenzen's estimated grain weight of the Didrachma by about a ¼ of a grain of wheat, the entire system comes pulsing back to life. This "Commercial" system is in homage to the moon and provides a series of numbers for tracking the movements of the moon within the solar year, lunar year or lunar nutation cycle of 18.613-years.


The Roman Gold standard is based upon a Talent that is the same grain weight as the Babylonian gold standard. This is how Lenzen assesses the Roman system (left box):


1 Talent…377568 grains equals:
60 Mina…6292 grains, or
80 Libra…4719.60 grains, or
960 Uncia…393.30 grains.


1 Talent….378000 grains equals:
60 Mina…6300 grains, or
80 Libra…4725 grains, or
960 Uncia…393.75 grains.

Again, the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, Khafre Pyramid and the Greek Stadium measurement are present within these grain weight numbers.

Figure 2: These Egyptian "Beqa" weights are all marked to indicate that they were used for weighing quantities of gold dust, as each bears the "gold" insignia. This, seemingly, complete set was found at Khartoum.


The Babylonians had 2 kinds of Talent weights, one of which featured in everyday transactions and another that was reserved exclusively for payments to the Royal treasury. The ordinary Talent was 60 Mina and the Royal Talent was 61.666666 Mina (61& 2/3rds).
The Romans appear to have had a similar system in place to do with their Libra, wherein there was an ordinary Libra of weight (4725 grains) and a slightly heavier Libra of account called the Pondo (4921.875 grains).

Donald L Lenzen, after combing a myriad of ancient references, concludes that the values for the Libra of weight and the Libra of account or Pondo were based upon 96 & 100 silver Denarius coins respectively to achieve the following grain values:


Libra of weight…....96 Denarius…4719.60 grains.
Pondo of account…100 Denarius…4916.25 grains.


Libra of weight…....96 Denarius…4725 grains.
Pondo of account…100 Denarius…4921.875 grains.

The Roman's show a surprising degree of sophistication in their choice of coded values, which this researcher finds astonishing, considering their track record of violence and pigheaded brutality. Prejudices aside, they're to be congratulated for the coding they managed to encrypt into the grain weight of a Pondo.

To estimate the grain values of the Roman Silver Denarius coin and Libra weights, Lenzen lists the accrued "averages" arrived at after 3323 Roman coins, of varied eras, were officially weighed. The averages showed a Denarius of 49.27 grains and a Libra of 4730.70 grains.
He later includes an additional refined "average" based upon weighing 2456 Brass Sestertius coins, bringing the total of all coins weighed to 5779. From this he deduces that the Roman Libra weight, as found in surviving coinage, averages 4720.15 grains. This is a marginal shortfall of only 4.85 grains from the 4725 grains weight proposed by this researcher as the true value of the Roman Libra.
It's fair to deduce that the surviving coins, weighed by modern scientists, were somewhat worn by the time they had been used in multiple ancient transactions or had jostled together for years in ancient merchant's kisum money & stone weights pouches. It is therefore reasonable to look at a slight increase on the averages found by modern scientists, in order to reach the intended grain weight of the assayers and coin fabricators of old.


Donald L Lenzen concluded that the early Alexandrian Libra of Account became the Silver standard, still used in Florence, Italy in 1340 AD. This same standard was adopted by King Edward III to facilitate English wool exportation to Italy. The system was:


1 Talent……419520.0 grains equals:
60 Mina……6992.0 grains, or
80 Libra……5244.0 grains, or
960 Uncia…437.0 grains.


1 Talent…..420000.0 grains equals:
60 Mina…..7000.0 grains, or
80 Libra…..5250.0 grains, or
960 Uncia…437.5 grains.

This system is somewhat more simple than the sophisticated standards in the possession of the Hebrews, Greeks, Assyrians, Babylonians or Egyptians. Other of the Roman standards used much more complex numbers also. The system is, however, capable of producing some navigational information, especially in terms of the Libra weight. This version, found in Florence in 1340 A.D., is probably only a shadow of its former self.

The above system was, more or less, what Edward III introduced to England in 1340 AD and what persisted until Henry VIII modified it slightly almost 250-years later.


Lenzen provides this estimation of the weight system used at Alexandria, an international centre of commerce from 320 BC.


1 Talent…….402739.2 grains equals:
60 Mina……6712.32 grains, or
80 Libra……5034.24 grains, or
960 Uncia….419.52 grains.


1 Talent…….403200.0 grains equals:
60 Mina…….6720.0 grains, or
80 Libra…….5040.0 grains, or
960 Uncia…..420 grains.

The Alexandrian system is sophisticated and introduces dynamic values from the ancient parcel of special navigational numbers.


Figure 3: The 8 stone weights shown are "Beqa weights", which were formerly used in the Nubian gold fields and inscribed with the "Nub" sign (the hieroglyph for gold). Donald L. Lenzen states that, 'The Beqa was multiplied decimally up to 2000 units and divided binarily down to 1/16th shekel'.

The 8 stone weights shown are accompanied by signs, which indicate that they represent 1/3, ½, 1, 1½, 2, 3, 6 & 10 Beqa.
Lenzen compares the weight values of four official, carefully marked, Egyptian stone weights to arrive at his average for a Beqa @ 196.65 grains. The stones, all notably inscribed with the names of a king or governor, range from the eras of 2250 BC to 1450 BC. Donald Lenzen's estimate is shown at the left.


1 Egyptian Talent………393300 grains, equals:
2000 Beqa Shekel…….. @ 196.65 grains.


1 Egyptian Talent………393750 grains, equals:
2000 Beqa Shekel…….. @ 196.875 grains.

The Roman Attic Talent was exactly the same as the Egyptian Talent and the same holds true for the Beqa Shekel weight utilised in both regions.


The Beqa went on to be adopted by both the Greeks and the Romans and the numbers generated by it are related to the lunar cycle, as found encoded into the dimensions of the Khafre Pyramid. Let's look first of all at how the Greeks and Romans used the Beqa. Again, Donald L. Lenzen's averages are found in the boxes to the left:


1 Talent……….589950 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 9832.5 grains, or
3000 Tridrachm.. @ 196.65 grains.


1 Talent………590625 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 9843.75 grains, or
3000 Tridrachm.. @ 196.875 grains.


1 Libra……… 4719.6 grains, equals:
12 Uncia……. @ 393.3 grains, or
24 Semuncia.. @ 196.65 grains.


1 Libra……… 4725 grains, equals:
12 Uncia……. @ 393.75 grains, or
24 Semuncia.. @ 196.875 grains.

To understand the entire Beqa system and exact ratio variations to it adopted by Mediterranean civilisations, one must understand the coded dimensions of the Khafre Pyramid.


Figure 4: Some stone "Duck Weights". This design, showing a duck with its head turned to lie along the length of its body, was a popular style of weight used in the ancient Assyrian-Babylonian region.

The British Museum has in its collection a black basalt weight (exhibit 91005) made by King Nebuchadrezzar II. Its inscription certifies that it was a copy of a weight belonging to Sumerian King Shulgi (2095 - 2048 B.C).
The weight is inscribed, 'one mina true weight' and its officially published weight is 15100 grains
Donald Lenzen states that, 'This is the usual heavy or double mina. The single or light mina would weigh 7550 grains'.

Here are Lenzen's published results (left column), based on the Nebuchadrezzar II black basalt standard. In 606 B.C Nebuchadrezzar II restored the ancient Sumerian weights system used 1500-years prior to his reign.


1 Talent………906000 grains, equals:
60 Mina……… @ 15100 grains, or:
3600 Shekel…. @ 251.66 grains.


1 Talent………907200 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 15120 grains, or:
3600 Shekel….@ 252 grains.


1 Talent………453000 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 7550 grains, or:
3600 Shekel… @ 125.83 grains.


1 Talent………453600 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 7560 grains, or:
3600 Shekel… @ 126 grains.

The Nebuchadrezzar II black basalt weight was intended to convey 15120 grains, as this is a very important Great Pyramid number. The Talent, Mina & Shekel, in double or single guises, were configured for mnemonic reference to the following:

The detectable error in the black basalt weight made by Nebachadrezzar II and based upon King Shulgi's earlier weight from 1500-years earlier, was only 20 grains less than these values. This error is .0457 of an ounce making it .998677248 true. Again, it must be realised that there will be small discrepancies in the final weight achieved, depending upon the actual weight of the grain seeds. The important thing to concentrate on was the actual number of grains counted out to make the weight, for it is that number which holds the key to the science being encoded. The final weights found in a duck weight artefact will be very close to the sought after number, but will rarely be totally exact.


Lenzen goes on to state, 'The Sumerian-Babylonian talent contained 60 mina, however, according to ancient Sumerian text there was also a talent of 61.666666 mina' (61 & 2/3rds) (Wengler in Deimel Orentalia 5, p. 48, Metrologia, p.99.)

Lenzen bases his final conclusion of the Royal Talent's intended weight on the average weight of 3 artefacts, which are:

Under this system the green syenite duck weight was intended to be 1/4th the weight of the grey basalt duck, double talent weight and the black basalt duck weight was 1/60th of the grey basalt, double talent weight. The lightest value, the black basalt weight, was also intended to be 1/15th of the green syenite duck weight.

This slightly heavier standard was for payments to the royal treasury and some weights of this type bear the inscription, "of the King".
Here's a "corrected" rendition when interpreting the grey basalt double talent as 133.302875 lb (or about .49 of an oz lighter than its official weight). The boxes to the left are, again, based upon Lenzen's overall averages in assessing weights during 10-years of analysis.


1 Talent………931334.40 grains, equals:
60 Mina…… @ 15522.24 grains, or:
3600 Shekel.. @ 258.70 grains.


1 Talent………933120 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 15552 grains, or:
3600 Shekel… @ 259.2 grains.


1 Talent……… 465667.20 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 7761.20 grains, or:
3600 Shekel… @ 129.35 grains.


1 Talent……… 466560 grains, equals:
60 Mina……… @ 7776 grains, or:
3600 Shekel….. @ 129.6 grains.

Donald . L. Lenzen's overall average estimate for the Royal double Mina is only ¼ of a grain less than 259.20 grains for the Heavy Shekel. This puts the Mina at 15552 grains, identifying a very important value in the ancient astronomical/ navigational parcel of numbers…for some of the following reasons:

By allowing the system to be read (symbolically/ literally) as either 15555.55555 grains or 15552 grains for each 60 double Mina allotment during a transaction, merchants trading in combined sexagesimal/ septimal systems would be able to calculate volumes easily and encounter no significant, detectable error in quantities based upon weight.
The true system would, of course, be based solidly on one set numerical choice and the true pyramid numbers are derived from utilising the 15552 grains to represent 60 Double Mina.

The ancient Sumerian text stating that there was a slightly heavier Talent of 61.66666 (61 & 2/3rds) regular Mina's is very nearly correct to a tolerance of 11.6756 grains per Mina increase. Merchants would have, most certainly, viewed this Royal Talent as "rounding out" to 61 & 2/3rds normal Mina's. The primary goal of the astronomer/ mathematicians was to have a Talent of exactly 933120 grains. The sum of 933120 feet would be 1/140th of the Great Pyramid's equatorial circumference assignment of 24741.81818 miles.

The Hebrews had a volume called a Lethech which was based upon a cube, with each side complying to their 21-inch Cubit. The sought after value of this coding was 9331.2 cubic inches or 5 baths of 1866.24 cubic inches each. To achieve the goal exactly the Cubit would have had to be 21.053. Two sides could have been 21 inches, with the third set at 21.12 inches (code related to the mile of 5280) to get the relationship closer.


Donald L. Lenzen gives us this quote: 'For weighing gold an important alteration was made. The shekel of 125.856 grains was retained, but a new mina of 50, instead of 60 shekels, was introduced'.
Here is Lenzen's estimate (left column) of what the gold standard would have been:


1 Talent………377568 grains, equals:
60 Mina…….. @ 6292.8 grains, or
3000 Shekel… @ 125.856 grains.


1 Talent……… 378000 grains, equals:
60 Mina……… @ 6300 grains, or
3000 Shekels… @ 126 grains.

The Great Pyramid is 756 feet long and half its length is 378 feet. The defining width of Stonehenge is 378 feet and the site will fit comfortably into a circle (NW to SE) of that diameter, with a small over-shoot NE & SW, where the containment ring is set to 384 feet (deliberately slightly elliptical site).

The Sumerian/ Babylonian double talent was 129.6 pounds (½ of 259.2 lbs), which codes the number for precession. Both the remnant British weight standard and the Sumerian/ Babylonian standard stem from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.

The Sumerian/ Babylonian Royal Double Talent was based upon 933120 grains (6 series of numbers), which equates to 133.3028571 British standard lbs. The grey basalt "Double Royal Talent" duck artefact from Mesopotamia is said to weigh 133.5 lb (total error is 3.154 ounces excess…making it .9985233 true).



1 Talent……..943920.0 grains equals:
60 Mina……..15732.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel…262.2 grains.


1 Talent……945000.0 grains equals:
60 Mina……15750.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel…262.5 grains.


1 Talent……471960.0 grains equals:
60 Mina……7866.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel…131.1 grains.


1 Talent………472500.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………7875.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel….131.25 grains.

With the adjustment of the Syrian light Shekel of less than ¼ of a grain of wheat, the entire mathematical progression pulsates back into life and all of the numbers make perfect sense. It can be readily seen that these are numbers shared by several other civilisations for their weights standards and the use of these numbers will translate fluidly into accurate, safe navigation at sea or into tracking the cycle of the moon.
Lenzen quotes William Ridgeway and Soutzo, wherein they write, 'The Roman Centupodium was equal to and derived from the Assyrian Talent. The Romans obtained their own pound by dividing the Assyrian Talent into one hundred parts instead of sixty'.
This preoccupation, between nations, of divvying up the original parcel of highly scientific numbers into preferred or convenient allotments, was a widespread practice. Even though one nation didn't necessarily duplicate the exact system of a neighbouring nation, all were drawing from the same wellspring of original numbers and not creating non-aligned orphan values. Each nation religiously and rigorously adhered to a policy of using particular numbers that were, at least, a simple ratio variation on the numbers used by all other cousin nations. This policy facilitated trade and the exchange of currencies or volumes of goods, as well as assured that the "special knowledge" was used conspicuously on a daily basis and kept at the forefront of memory. The heavy Assyrian Talent and the heavy Hebrew Talent were exactly the same grain weight value.

SUMMARY TABLES, supplied by Prof. Bruce Moon.

Corrected Ancient Weights in Grains for the Major Unit of Each System.

Note: a small 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8 means "to the power of".

WEIGHT (grain)
Hebrew Desert-H*a
Hebrew Jerusalem-H*b
Greek Commercial c
Roman Gold d
Roman Double-Beqa
Roman Silver
Babylonian Royal-H*

(Note the factor seven in all cases but the last and multiple fives. A factor of 3×22 is of course twelve as before and it is also present in most cases.)

Notes: * For each of these cases, there is a corresponding 'Light' Standard whose talent is half the weight of the heavy talent.
§ This is the abundant number mentioned earlier.

a The Egyptian Gold and Greek Attic talents have the same values as the Hebrew Desert Light.
b The Assyrian Heavy and Light talents have the same values as the Hebrew Desert ones.
c The Greek Tridrachm talent is the same.
d The Babylonian Gold talent is the same.

Examples of relationships between these values are:

N:O 5:6; O:P 8:5; P:Q 25:16; Q:R 80:1; R:S 24:25; Q:T 10:9; T:U 25:24; U:V 4:9; V:W 35:36 [Bruce Moon].


The modern British Weights system is historically traceable to Henry VIII in 1527. The standard "Tower" or "old Saxon" pound of 5400 grains was discarded during the reign of Henry VIII and the Troy pound of 7200 grains was instituted in its place. This new standard was later reduced to the 7000 grain pound, which persisted into modern times. The 7000 grain pound standard that Henry VIII finally settled on was, whether he realised it or not, the ancient Egyptian Sep weight. Henry VIII did little more than revamp the 1340 AD avoirdupois system of Edward III, which was based upon a late era Roman trade Mina of 16 Uncia (@ 437.5 grains each. It's most unfortunate that Henry VIII eliminated the Saxon pound of 5400 grains.

Few people seem to realise that the entirety of the ancient Egyptian weights, measures, volume and area standards migrated to Germany/ France/ Spain/ Portugal/ British Isles/ Scandinavia from the Middle East/ Near East as early as 5000 BC and were continuously used, venerated and reasonably preserved. Whereas creeping aridity, abandonment of a homeland and latter influxes of nomadic foreigners, migrating up from Africa or elsewhere, changed the former ethnic/ cultural balance of the Middle East and Near East over several millenniums, the situation in Western Europe, amidst cousin peoples, changed very little for a long period. Regional European priests maintained their former homeland standards via early era artefacts, carried with their forebears to Europe.... or within enduring standing stone monuments erected by the new migrants upon arrival. The foremost great library of the Egyptian homeland mathematical codes survives at Carnac in Brittany, France. It's evident that the late era Druids preserved ancient knowledge and were totally conversant with the old sciences well into Roman times. Most of the in-depth knowledge seems to have been "bludgeoned to death" and systematically eradicated during the Roman occupations and latter Roman Christian eras. Catholic churches were built over thousands of former standing stone circle sites to smother and obliterate the scientific knowledge they mathematically encoded.

The "bloody-minded" people of the British Isles always maintained that there was something sacred about their measurement standard and that they must preserve it at all cost. Groups, who at late eras fell under the labels of Celts, Gaul's, Iberians, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts or many other names, maintained the same vigilant stance as best they could, even throughout the oppressive years of cruel Christian domination. The measurement standards of Europe have a 6000 to 7000-year old pedigree within the European theatre and were, to a large part, rigidly maintained for accuracy in several regions, including France, up until fairly recent centuries. Although some of the original weights, measures and volumes were preserved much was lost under the relentless preoccupation of the Roman church to eradicate all things Pagan.

It is beyond the scope of this article to do so, but the many, varied, old and traditional units of weight, measurement and volume used throughout Europe need to be closely scrutinised and compared to ancient Mediterranean standards.

The biggest blunder Henry VIII made was in eliminating the Saxon pound of 5400 grains, for the number 54 was the numerical key to unlocking dynamic ratio and mathematical progression codes residing in all the standards of each ancient Mediterranean nation. Henry VIII, in his ignorance, severed this delicate last link to the scientific knowledge that had guided a multitude of civilisations for many thousands of years. In doing so he most certainly (if only inadvertently) earned his title of "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defenso), bestowed upon him by Pope Leo X of Rome in 1521, as a reward for attacking Lutheran ideas. Perhaps Henry's religious fervour and abhorrence for the heresies of Saxony, at the time, induced him to ban old Saxon units, which had been used in England for 1000-years…and were fully a part of the old Pagan knowledge.

It would almost seem that Henry VIII, being a Catholic King at the time, did not solicit expert advice from individuals associated with the old merchant and trade guilds when he remodelled England's weight standard. The old English guilds retained vestiges of profound knowledge relative to the former systems. Most of the early "Pagan" scientific knowledge had been "driven underground" due to foreign occupation, domination and religious persecution. Many of the more traditional systems of Weights, Measures and Volumes found in ancient England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales can be shown to be "ratio" compatible with each other… or to more geographically distant standards found throughout the Mediterranean Basin. The oldest guilds, which were, more often than not, aligned to secret societies, had been responsible for encoding unauthorised "Pagan" geometries and mathematical principles into the great cathedrals of Europe, under the supposedly watchful, but patently ignorant eyes of their mediaeval Catholic overseers.


According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition) article devoted to ancient Weights and Measures, some 3400 weights have been recovered from archaeological digs in Egypt/ Nubia. Although there are many combinations of weights in various progressions of numbers, the basic unit appears to be a "Kite", equating to .16 British Standard ounces. One hundred "Kite" make one "Deben", equivalent to a modern era British Standard ounce and 10 Deben make one Sep, which equals 1 British Standard pound.

Ancient Egyptian weights have been found that are in allotments of Kites ranging from 1 to 6.6. This is how the basic Sep/ Pound system would look in terms of "grains":


1 Sep (Pound)………7000 grains, equals:
10 Deben @ 1.6 ounces… 700 grains, or
100 Kite @ .16 ounces…. 70 grains.


1 Ton……… 15680000 grains, equals:
20 Cwt…….. @ 784000 grains, or
160 Stone…. @ 98000 grains, or
2240 Pounds/ Sep.. @ 7000 grains, or
22400 Deben.. @ 700 grains, or
35840 Ounces/ @ 437.5 grains, or
224000 Kite… @ 70 grains.

It's very important to realise that this English system is a very late innovation that is only 475 years old. Whereas the system introduced by Henry VIII (and firmly set into law by Elizabeth I) has a direct pedigree to more ancient systems, it lacks the fluidity of, say, an Egyptian or Greek system, which clearly coded such things as the equatorial size of the Earth through the full range of lesser divisions.
This "walking wounded", English weights system is altogether too symmetrical and rounded in its numbers @ 7000 grains per pound to provide any truly dynamic navigational coding, which shows that almost a thousand years under Roman Catholicism had taken a heavy toll on the developed sciences of Britain from the pre-Roman epochs. The simple, 7000-grain pound was little more than a "halfway house" between dynamic ancient science and modern, sterile decimalisation. It was directly related to and a variation on the Avoirdupois system instituted by Edward III in 1340 AD for standardised trade with Italy. Thankfully, the ancient inch and foot were still intact in England....bloodied but unbowed.


A more rational and traditional weights system was introduced into France in 789AD based upon expert consultation that had occurred between Charlemagne, King of the Franks and the Caliph Harun-Al-Rashid of Bagdad. Charlemagne introduced the ancient Babylonian system, based upon the Arabic gold Dinar. Here is Lenzen's assessment of what Charlemagne's system was:


1 Talent……..906163.20 grains equals:
60 Mina…….15102.72 grains, or
3600 Shekel…251.712 grains.


1 Talent………907200 grains equals:
60 Mina………15120.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel…..252 grains


1 Talent……453081.60 grains equals:
60 Mina……7551.36 grains, or
3600 Shekel…125.856 grains.


1 Talent………453600.0 grains equals:
60 Mina………7560.0 grains, or
3600 Shekel….126.0 grains.

Charlemagne assigned Frankish names to these divisions, calling his largest weight a "Pile". The heavy and light systems of Charlemagne are based upon the dimensional numbers occurring on the Great Pyramid and, with those numbers, came dynamic navigational codes.

This exceptional lineup of values, issuing forth from Caliph Harun-Al-Rashid of Bagdad, is unsurprising as the Caliph was very well informed about the old codes. Since the capture of Alexandria in 640 A.D., the Arabs had been translating into Arabic as many rare manuscripts as they could obtain. They ransacked monasteries for rare copies of Euclid, Galen, Plato, Aristotle and the Hindu sages. Translators of the rare manuscripts were paid in gold by the weight of each manuscript. While Europe, under the yoke of the church, was plunged into the Dark Ages, the Arabs were becoming increasingly enlightened and their scholarship soon eclipsed the "bludgeoned to death" sciences of the west.

In 1350 King John of France decided to revise the system by making another "Pile" that was 1/25th the size of that instituted some 560-years earlier by Charlemagne. Here are Lenzen's values for King John's weights, based upon the full official set kept at the Conservatoire National Des Arts et Metiers in Paris.


1 Pile………188818.0 grains equals:
25 Livre……7552.72 grains, or
50 Marc……3776.36 grains, or
400 Ounce…472.04 grains, or
230400 grains @ .8195 grains


1 Pile……….189000.0 grains equals:
25 Livre…….7560.0 grains or,
50 Marc…….3780.0 grains, or
400 Ounce…472.5 grains, or
230400 grains @ .8203125 grains.

The last entry (.8203125) in the above list relates to the fact that the French, under King John and future monarchs, used barleycorns to determine grain weight and these are about .82 the weight of a wheat grain. It's apparent that earlier civilisations based everything, first and foremost, on wheat weight, then made reference/ comparisons to the relative weights of other grains or beans after that.
Because King John configured his system on that of Charlemagne, whose system, in its turn, was founded on the ancient Babylonian/ Sumerian system, it works well for navigation or astronomical calculations. It's doubtful that King John ever really knew the significance of the numbers he had in his possession, but at least he knew he had something significant that needed to be preserved. He, unlike so many others, was wise enough to know that he shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. This system survived until 1790, when it was replaced by the metric system. Let's put King John's system through its paces and show "nos amis en France" the treasure they had in their possession, until it was supplanted by metric measurements.

King John's system, like that of Charlemagne before him, is dynamic because it's fully founded on the most ancient numbers. The age-old numbers most certainly persisted in France (Gaul) during the Druidic era and are clearly encoded into the Calendar of Coligny artefact, which was, at some epoch, brutally smashed to pieces (probably in the Roman Christian era). Thankfully enough of the pieces survived to make decoding possible (see The calendar of Coligny within this website).

In comparison to King John's system, the English system, instituted by Henry VIII, is pretty lack-lustre. It preserves basic principles and that's the main thing. All of its numerical components, like 2240, 112, 16, 14 or even 437.5 will divide fluidly into the base perimeter measurements of the Great Pyramid (3024 feet) in a meaningful way. The 3024 feet ÷ 437.5 (grains per ounce) = 6.912 and there were 69.12-miles in one degree of arc under the ancient "true" equatorial reading of 24883.2-miles. There's a glimmer or spark of life in the English system yet, but it's more dead than alive.
With solid, investigative probes to find the older traditional weights mentioned in British folklore, or those extractible from artefacts, understandings of more sophisticated ancient systems would resurface.


Here is Lenzen's assessment on the left:


1 Cubit…. 16.842398 inches equals:
2 Span…. 8.421199 inches, or
4 Hand… 4.210599 inches,or
24 Finger… .701766 inches.


1 Cubit….. 16.8 inches equals:
2 Span….. 8.4 inches, or
4 Hand…. 4.2 inches, or
24 Finger…. .70 inches.

This (above) is part of the old standard and seems to have been used in the building of the first Temple.


1 Reed… 126.3180 inches equals:
5 Long Cubit… 21.0530 inches, or
7.5 Short Cubit… 16.8424 inches, or
30 Handbreadth…4.2106 inches.


1 Reed… 126 inches equals:
5 Long Cubit… 21 inches, or
7.5 Short Cubit… 16.8 inches, or
30 Handbreadth…4.2 inches.

The Siloam inscription in King Hezekiah's water aqueduct, while confirming the existence of the 21-inch cubit, also identifies another Hebrew cubit of 17.5 inches. This would make perfect sense, inasmuch as a 17.5 inch increment would go into a base side of the Great Pyramid (756 feet…9072 inches) a total of 518.4 times. The Great Pyramid and the other pyramids of the Giza Plateau provided the "standard" that all of the cousin nations, in various ratio divisions, were using for their national standards.

The 518.4 number is coding the 51.84-degree angle of the Great Pyramid's side, the 5184 square reeds its base occupies, the 5184-years in 1/5th of the Precession of the Equinoxes, the 518.4 miles per hour (X 2) that the Earth rotates at daily and the 51.84 Pyramid acres (28800 sq. feet) of the four faces and base of the Great Pyramid. The 1.75 inch increment also divides perfectly into the built in dimensions of the Khafre Pyramid, divulging important coded information in every case, which related to the lunar cycle. The base length of Khafre was 486 such increments and the means of tracking the 2551.5-days (7.2 lunar years) of the moon within the Sabbatical Calendar system was in 486 periods of 5.25-days. The Hebrews would also have used a measurement of 17.6 inches to cater to "11" series lengths, and their 21-inch Royal Cubit would naturally convert to an 18-inch common cubit, using the standard ratio of 1.16666666 to 1.

It's important to realise that everyone was using everyone else's measurements and the Hebrew system would have included all of the "11" series divisions (fathoms, etc.) as well as each of the Egyptian Royal Cubits (for mnemonic reference to the size of the Earth). The Hebrews also seemed to have a particular liking to the "7" series of numbers (like their Greek conquerors) and the Greek Stadium (630 feet), Greek short stadia (525 feet) a Hebrew stadia of (700 feet) and Greek mile (5250 feet) were used by them. They also had many other units, including a Parasang of 4 Greek miles or 21000 feet. There were also several small units in use, some of which were introduced by Babylonian conquerors.


Lenzen identifies a series of complex values, which he relates back to a Greek foot of 12.164 inches. There were, in fact, four types of Greek feet, three of which were very close in value. Let's list Donald Lenzen's estimate and then attempt to show what the Greek scientists were trying to accomplish and remember by this choice of increments. The first analysis will be based upon measurements undertaken on the Parthenon in 1846 by Penrose, wherein the base platform complies to 1-second of arc for the equatorial size of the Earth.


1 Stadia….. 7298.6666 inches equals:
10 Amma… 729.8660 inches, or
100 Orgyia… 72.9866 inches, or
400 Cubit….. 18.2466 inches, or
500 Pygon…. 14.5973 inches, or
2000 Hand… 3.6493 inches, or
10000 Digit… .7298 inches.


1 Stadia….. 7299.072 inches equals:
10 Amma…. 729.9072 inches, or
100 Orgyia…. 72.99072 inches, or
400 Cubit….. 18.24768 inches, or
500 Pygon…. 14.598144 inches, or
2000 Hand…. 3.649536 inches, or
10000 Digit… .7299072 inches, or

This "new Greek foot" calibration is based upon the size of the Earth and is a variation on the most common or normal Greek measurement system that used a foot of 12.6 inches. This calibration is highly scientific.

The Parthenon platform, upon which the edifice stands, was carefully measured by Francis C Penrose in 1846. Lenzen, in commenting on Penrose's findings, gives a value of 12.165 inches for the new Greek foot, based upon the Parthenon complying to 100 such feet in width. This is 1.01375 British feet and if the value were adjusted by a mere .00001 of an inch, then the Greek foot would be in a perfect ratio to the "true" size of the Earth and 100 such feet would be 1 second of arc. Therefore we have:

1.01376 feet (12.16512-inches) X 100 = 101376 feet (1-second of equatorial arc) X 60 = 6082.56 feet (1-minute of equatorial arc) X 60 = 364953.6 feet (1-degree of equatorial arc) X 360 = 131383296 feet = 24883.2- miles (the true size of the Earth under the old calibration). This is 12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X 1.2.

In the above list, the Stadia is 600 "New Greek feet" whereas the Amma is 60, the Orgyia is 6, the Cubit is 1.5, the Pygon is 1.2, the Hand is .3 and the Digit is .06 respectively. This system is exclusively for mnemonic reference to the "true" size of the Earth.

Let's look at another two systems that relate to the Greek foot of 12.15 inches and the Samos foot of 12.096-inches respectively. There should, theoretically, be yet another Greek foot of 12.1-inches.


1 Stadia….. 7290.0 inches equals:
10 Amma…. 729.0 inches, or
100 Orgyia…. 72.90 inches, or
400 Cubit….. 18.225 inches, or
500 Pygon…. 14.58 inches, or
2000 Hand…. 3.645 inches, or
10000 Digit… .7290 inches, or


1 Stadia….. 7257.6 inches equals:
10 Amma…. 725.76 inches, or
100 Orgyia…. 72.576 inches, or
400 Cubit….. 18.144 inches, or
500 Pygon…. 14.5152 inches, or
2000 Hand…. 3.6288 inches, or
10000 Digit… .72576 inches, or

The Greek foot of 12.15 inches was used as a calculation increment for tracking the progress of the moon during the 2551.5-day period (7.2 lunar years) of the lunisolar Sabbatical calendar system. The Sabbatical calendar system was based upon 7-solar years (2556.75-days) and the difference between the sun and moon periods, within the calendar count, was 5.25-days. A mistletoe culling ceremony on the sixth day after the full moon/ winter solstice conjunction put the 2-periods in synchronisation for the next 7-years. Lunar major standstill/ winter solstice provided the primary reference day. The 12.15- inch Greek foot was also for following the progress of the moon during this 18.613-year (used as 6804-days anciently) lunar nutation cycle. There would be 56 periods of 121.5-days in the 6804-day cycle, which would go a long way toward explaining the 56 posts on the Aubrey Circle at Stonehenge. Lenzen states that there is general acceptance that the Roman measurements were 24/25ths of the Greek measures. This appears to be sustainable in consideration of the Roman foot at 11.664 inches and a Greek foot at 12.15 inches.

The Samos foot of 12.096 inches was dedicated to the Great Pyramid's equatorial circumference code for the size of the Earth. The Samos foot works in exactly the same way as the foot found by Penrose at the Parthenon and 100 such Samos feet equal 1 second of arc under the Great Pyramid's equatorial assignment. Incidentally, this distance (100.8 feet) is the measured distance between two opposing lintel faces or megaliths across the Sarsen Circle at Stonehenge (1-second of Earth circumference arc). The Sarsen Circle was made slightly elliptical to accommodate 90-degrees opposed codes.

These variable Greek feet measures were the equivalent, in Greece, to the Egyptian Royal Cubits in Egypt and contain all of the same information in reduced ratio. These rulers functioned more as calculators.

The main Greek measurements for distances were a "7" series composed of 12.6 inches (Greek foot), 2.52 feet (Assyrian Cubit), 10.5 feet (Reed) 525 feet (short Stadium), 630 feet (Stadium) and 5250 feet (Greek Mile). The Greeks, like the Hebrews, had a seeming preference to working in "7" values, but would have used the entire range of measurements, including the increments based upon PHI (1.6180339).


The Roman foot was found to be 11.664 inches by John Greaves, professor of geometry, who in 1639 went to Rome specifically to ascertain the length of an ancient Roman foot. Greaves located a monument of Roman architect, Stalius Asper and measured bas relief instruments used by him in the first century A. D. Greaves concluded, after careful investigation, that the Roman foot, 'contained 1944 such parts as the English foot contains 2000'. This means a Roman foot of 11.664 inches.

Donald L Lenzen provides the following estimate (left) of what the Roman length measurements were:


1 Stadia……..7298.6666876 inches equals:
1250 Pace…..58.389335 inches.

Cubit… 24 Digit…17.516800 inches.
Foot… 16 Digit…11.677867 inches.
Palm… 4 Digit…. 2.919466 inches.
Digit… 1 Digit…. .729866 inches.


1 Stadia……..7290.0 inches equals:
1250 Pace…..58.32 inches.

Cubit… 24 Digit…17.496 inches.
Foot… 16 Digit…11.664 inches.
Palm… 4 Digit…. 2.916 inches.
Digit… 1 Digit…. .729 inches.

It is very apparent that this Roman system is a duplication of the Greek "lunar" system that used a foot of 12.15 inches, in Greece, as the calculating increment. There is a direct ratio relationship between the Roman foot (at an enlarged value) and the Greek foot…eg. 11664 ÷ 12.15 = 960. The Egyptian Theban volume was 11664 cubic inches.

We can ascertain from this that the Romans were using all of the Greek measures, if in reduced ratio, and had the same line-up of "feet" to serve various types of navigational and cyclic calculation functions.
The numerical value of 11.664 was highly important to several Mediterranean civilisations and represented a definitive number in their cubic capacity and grain weight systems. For practical measurements of length, however, it's apparent that the Romans used a foot of 11.66666 inches, as, when multiplied by 3, this resolves to 35-inches, then 70, 105, 140, etc. This is a convenient "7" series increment to work with and, despite the long tail of decimals in this display, is simply 11 & 2/3rds inches.

By their having an increment of 11.66666 inches it is also evident that the Romans measured decimally with a ruler of 10-inches. Throughout the Mediterranean a special ratio of 1 to 1.1666666 was applied to standard measurements and Royal Cubits would reduce to common cubit status by application of this ratio. In a general sense, the 1 to 1.1666666 ratio would elevate a "6" series number to a "7" series number, thus a Celtic common cubit @ 18-inches X 1.166666 = 21-inches…the length of the Hebrew/ Celtic Royal Cubit.

The above representation of what the Romans had and used by way of length measurements is only a very small part of what they possessed. We can say with reasonable certainty that "everyone used everything that everyone else had"…until the latter eras when civilisations went into decline and the "special knowledge" began to be lost.

There is reason to believe that the Romans and others used a ratio/ progression of 1.3125 for convenient mnemonic recall of the size of the Earth. This numerical combination occurs in the Hebrew Desert Heavy standard for weights, with a Mina of 13125.0 grains. As stated, the rational and functional Roman foot for measuring overland distances would have been the simple 11.66666 inch foot (11 & 2/3rds inches), which was a "7" series measurement, totally compatible with the Hebrew and Greek measurements. For example, there would have been 5400 of these Roman feet (11.666666-inches) in a Greek mile of 5250 feet (5000 Greek feet of 12.6-inches). Likewise, there would have been 720 of these Roman feet in a Hebrew Stadium of 700 feet (400 Hebrew Royal Cubits of 21 inches each).

One of the concepts of ancient metrology, which survived into mediaeval times, was that 75 Roman miles represented 1-degree of arc for the world, although scholars of the time had, seemingly, no lingering knowledge of the actual, former length of a Roman foot.

If we multiply a foot of 11.66666 inches X 5000 we get a Roman mile of 58333.3333-inches. If 75 such Roman miles represent 1-degree of arc for the world, then that equates to 4375000-inches or 364583.33333 British feet of 12-inches each. This value, multiplied by 360 = 131250000 British feet or 135000000 Roman feet. This is also 12500000 Hebrew Reeds of 10.5 feet each or 125000000 Greek feet of 12.6-inches each. Essentially, this very plausible coded representation for the size of the Earth is a purely "7" series way of calibrating the equatorial circumference. The sum of 131250000 feet equals 24857.955455 British miles, 27000 Roman miles or 25000 Greek miles. This same circumference was probably 5000 Egyptian Atur of 26250 British feet each.

It is noteworthy that the 4375 numerical combination found in the inch value of 75 Roman miles (1-degree of equatorial arc) has been traditionally preserved in the grain weight systems of European countries and 437.5 grains is the British Standard ounce. It was also the weight of a trade Uncia adopted by King Edward III in 1340 A.D., based upon the Roman Silver standard Mina.


The Egyptians used a great many measurements, but Donald L Lenzen's list homes in on, primarily, the Royal Cubit and its subdivisions. In truth, there were 3 major Royal Cubits in use, as well as, potentially, several more. The most important function of the Royal Cubits was for mnemonically coding the equatorial size of the Earth under 3 marginally different assignments. Let's look at these:


Double Cubit.... 56 Digits.... 41.2097 inches.
Royal Cubit...... 28 Digits.... 20.6048 inches.
Common Cubit. 24 Digits..... 17.6613 inches.
Small Cubit....... 20 Digits..... 14.7177 inches.
Foot ..................16..Digits......11.7742 inches.
Great Span....... 14 Digits.......10.3024 inches.
Small Span........ 12 Digits...... 8.8306 inches.
Palm ...................4 Digits....... 2.9435 inches.
Digit................... 1 Digit........... .7358 inches.


Double Cubit........ 56 Digits..... 41.23636364 inches.
Royal Cubit........... 28 Digits.... 20.61818182 inches.
Common Cubit....... 24 Digits... 17.67272728 inches.
Small Cubit............. 20 Digits... 14.72727273 inches.
Foot......................... 16 Digits... 11.78181818 inches.
Great Span.............. 14 Digits... 10.30909091 inches.
Small Span................12 Digits.... 8.836363637 inches.
Palm........................... 4 Digits..... 2.94545456 inches.
Digit........................... 1 Digit........ .736363636 inches.


Double Cubit...... 56 Digits... 41.25 inches.
Royal Cubit........ 28 Digits... 20.625 inches.
Common Cubit... 24 Digits... 17.67857143 inches.
Small Cubit......... 20 Digits... 14.73214286 inches.
Foot.................... 16 Digits.... 11.78571429 inches.
Great Span......... 14 Digits... 10.3125 inches.
Small Span.......... 12 Digits... 8.839285714 inches.
Palm...................... 4 Digits... 2.946428571 inches.
Digit..................... 1 Digit..... .736607142 inches.


Double Cubit...... 56 Digits... 41.472 inches.
Royal Cubit........ 28 Digits... 20.736 inches.
Common Cubit.... 24 Digits... 17.77371429 inches.
Small Cubit.......... 20 Digits... 14.81142857 inches.
Foot...................... 16 Digits... 11.84914286 inches.
Great Span........... 14 Digits... 10.368 inches.
Small Span............12 Digits... 8.886857143 inches.
Palm....................... 4 Digits.... 2.962285714 inches.
Digit....................... 1 Digit.... .740571428 inches.

Each of these Royal Cubit measurements and their subdivisions relate directly to the size of the Earth. The simple formula to find the equatorial circumference under each assignment is to multiply the value of the "Royal Cubits" (shown above) by 1200 and read the result as miles. The "6&7" series Royal Cubit represented the literal length of Great Pyramid @ 756 feet and 440 such cubits equal 756 feet. This cubit gives an equatorial circumference of 24741.81818-miles wherein the 3024 feet perimeter of the pyramid represents ½ a minute of arc. Sea voyaging under this system would have measured distances in Hebrew Parasangs of 21000 feet, Greek Miles of 5250 feet, Hebrew Stadia of 700 feet, Greek Stadia of 630 feet, Short Greek Stadia of 525 feet, Reeds of 10.5 feet, Assyrian Cubits of 25.2 inches, Hebrew/ Celtic Royal Cubits of 21-inches, "Cubits of a Man" of 16.8 feet and Greek feet of 12.6 inches.

The "11" series Royal Cubit gives an equatorial circumference for the Earth as 24750-miles. Again the Royal Cubit in the list is multiplied by 1200 and the resultant total read as miles. This cubit was for traversing the oceans according to an "11" series of numbers and distances travelled were read as Leagues (16500 feet), Miles (5280 feet), Furlongs (660 feet), Chains (66 feet), Rods/ Perches (16.5 feet), Fathoms (5.5 feet) and Links (7.92 inches). To code this system the Great Pyramid had to be, symbolically, viewed as 3-inches longer per side, or 756.25 feet, for a full perimeter of 3025 feet (½ a minute of arc).

The "true" Earth circumference Royal Cubit is the most accurate and gives an equatorial measurement of 24883.2-miles, which is only 18.8-miles less than the value we use today. The formula, again, is 20.736 X 1200 = 24883.2 (read as miles). The Schoenus measurement of Egypt is known to be 1200 Royal Cubits, but which one of the cubits it represents is not specified. Whichever one it is in the choice of three, it will carry a code for the size of the Earth in miles, substituting Royal Cubits for miles.

There were also other Royal Cubits, like one coding the lunar cycles. It would have had a length of 20.671875 inches. Another Royal Cubit, based upon reading the length of the Great Pyramid as 280 Megalithic Yards of 32.360678-inches (20-inches X 1.6180339…PHI), would have been 20.59315873 inches in length.

Common cubits were 1.1666666 less in length than their Royal counterparts.

Beyond this, the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, Khafre and Menkaure Pyramids show that all of the lengths used by all of the satellite nations around Egypt could be utilised as incremental values. The national standards and measurements of preference were all founded on the same original parcel of special numbers, whether ranging from a variety of small Digits, to the giant Atur length used in Egypt and, undoubtedly, representing 5 Greek miles or 26250 feet.

Greek Historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt in the 5th century B.C., made several statements about the pyramids, one of which was that the Great Pyramid had a length of 800 feet. We know that its length was 756 British standard feet, 777.6 Roman feet and 720 Greek feet, using the most common measurement increments of those nations. These were, however, only a small selection of measurement rod values, amidst a very sizable collection, that could be pressed into service.

Depending on the measurement rod that was used, certain categories of calculation could be made, including those that related specifically to the moon. If the Great Pyramid's base length is divided into 800 parts, then this means an increment of 11.34 inches. This is a very dynamic lunar number (11.34) and the width of the Sarsen Circle at Stonehenge (45-degrees azimuth to 225-degrees azimuth) was sometimes read (symbolically at least) as 113.4-feet*. This outer face width of the Sarsen Circle (on this azimuth line) was closely regulated by the positions of the Station stones.

*The Station Stones rectangle appears to have been intended to code a length of 264 feet (1/20th of a mile) and a width of 113.4 feet (strong lunar code). The Sarsen Circle Lintel faces from 225-degrees azimuth to 45-degrees azimuth fell slightly short of this diameter by, seemingly, (an intended) 3.4 feet. Despite the dilapidated condition of the Sarsens toward 225-degrees azimuth, which tends to negate the possibility of precisely reading the original architectural design intention, an external face to external face coded diameter of 110-feet appears to have been incorporated. Any such diameter would also have included "symbolic" readings, using near values of significance (for mnemonic, multicoded, versatility). The component positions of Stonehenge were multifunctional repositories of profound science, the values of which were encoded by distances and azimuth angles.

Three sides of the Great Pyramid (2268 feet) equate to 1134 feet X 2. Use of the 11.34-inch value turned the Great Pyramid into a lunar calculator, which could monitor the 2551.5-days in 7.2 lunar years (225 periods) or the 6804-day lunar nutation cycle (600 periods). The 2551.5-day count for the moon was done in conjunction with the 2556.75-day solar count within the lunisolar Sabbatical Calendar system, adopted by cousin peoples from Egypt to Europe. The 11.34-inch value also worked on the Khafre Pyramid (708.75 feet...15/16ths of the size of the Great Pyramid). There would be 750 such "lunar feet" of 11.34-inches in 708.75 feet.

Another ancient Greek statement placed the length of the Great Pyramid as 500 cubits, which would mean an increment in use of 18.144-inches. Such an increment would be very useful in doing equatorial circumference calculations.

Herodotus has been severely criticised by pyramidologists/ Egyptologists for his several "uninformed/ misinformed" statements relating to the pyramids. He said, amongst other things, that 'the surface area of each face was equal to the square of the height'. He also said that 'the surface area of each face was 8-Egyptian acres'. For making these observations, Herodotus has been severely derided by pyramidologists, who can't make his statements work...but as it turns out he was totally correct.


The only indications that exist as to what constituted the Sumerian/ Babylonian linear measurement standard are clues in texts or measurements within remnant structures. To date no examples of Mesopotamian cubit rods have been recovered, but an accumulation of archaeological clues puts the "double cubit" to around 25.2 inches and the "foot" to 12.60 inches.
These measures were divided up into 60th and 30th parts respectively. The ancient foot of 12.6 inches (a twelfth of a reed) was used by the Greeks, Arabians, Persians and Assyrians.

Lenzen's averaged assessment (left hand box), based on many archaeological or historical sources, is the following:


1 Double-cubit…… 50.527194 inches, equals:
2 Cubits……… @ 25.2633597 inches, or
12 Handbreadths… @ 4.210599 inches or
60 Fingerbreadths… @ . 842119 inches.


1 Double-cubit…… 50.4 inches, equals:
2 Cubits……… @ 25.2 inches, or
12 Handbreadths… @ 4.2 inches or
60 Fingerbreadths… @ .84 inches.

The true base measurements of the Great Pyramid (756 feet per side) comply admirably with these "corrected" measurements and the pyramid would be 1440 Sumerian/ Babylonian double-cubits in perimeter value. This is the same number that was used on the court altar of the Temple of Solomon if its assignment was in "common" Hebrew cubits of 18 inches each.


There are a drove of theories about what the pyramids were built for or what the state of scientific advancement was amidst satellite nations, in the environs of Egypt, during various ancient epochs. Most of the officially published scientific concepts portray Mediterranean nations subsisting at a rudimentary mathematical and scientific level of accomplishment, which advanced, despite frequent setbacks, over about five millennia to present levels of scientific achievement. The school of thought that predominates is isolationist driven, classicist historical interpretation. The classicist historians will tell us that systems of metrology developed as separate entities between nations and were, generally, only shared after a conquest and the imposition of the conqueror's official standards. Jewish scholars, for example, accept that many of the traditional Hebrew or Israelite standards were imposed after the Babylonian conquest.

The classicist historians have detected no generally apparent ratio relationship between one standard or another and are unable to proffer any explanation as to why such cumbersome numbers were chosen for "grain weights standards". They have not been able to detect any significance in the cubic capacities of vessels, simply because they conclude that there was no base increment like the "inch" which was standard to all or most of the nations of the Mediterranean. A thorough analysis of the sought after "grain weight" values (seed counts) in many national standards, coupled with lengths of surviving measuring rods, should have been sufficient for them to detect the most fundamental base increment used in "marked standard" volume vessels.

So, the Classicist Historians would have us believe that:

In consideration of the vast number of different "Mina" weights, "Amphora" volumes or "Cubit" lengths, all working in fluid ratio relationships with each other within national and international standards, the modern "official" historical interpretation is, clearly, unsustainable. On a statistical basis alone, the chances of many nations fashioning their standards to the highly scientific, interactive ratio relationships mentioned in this study, yet not understanding the science it all supported, is almost beyond calculation. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn is that ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean Basin were using a multifaceted but integrated metrological system, originally founded upon very advanced scientific understanding and achievement. The zenith epoch of that achievement is unknown, but the principles that came from it remain resident, as coded values, within and upon the pyramids of the Giza Plateau. The edifices of the plateau functioned to provide the essential mathematical elements of a comprehensive system of metrology, as well as being a Bureau of Standards for an internationally dispersed community of cousin nations.


In June of 1792 a project was commenced that would have major social, commercial and industrial repercussions for the two centuries that followed. Learned astronomer savants, Jean Baptiste-Joseph Delambre and François-André Méchain commenced a project to measure a curved segment of the Earth's surface in order to create a whole new measurement system. The idea was to mathematically calculate the distance from the North Pole to the equator on a meridian line that ran through Paris. Delambre worked from the north of France, beginning his survey at Dunkerque, while Méchain worked from the South, commencing his survey in Barcelona, Spain. After 7 difficult years and many privations, including imprisonment in Spain for Méchain and a very real risk of losing his wise head on the guillotine for Delambre, the two met in Carcassonne to compare notes, returning to Paris together as heroes of the day.
Sometime later, after a thorough analysis of the field notes, a platinum bar was fabricated that became the new metre, representing a ten millionth of the distance from the pole to the equator. Unfortunately it was .02mm short of the mark, which in accruing values represented a major discrepancy.

Blame for this faux pas is laid on Méchain, who supposedly didn't add his field note sums up correctly. Delambre is also held "coupable", for realising there was a mistake, but deciding to let it go unreported to the general public.
Well, that's the story we get anyway, but did these savants really make a mistake or was the outcome deliberate and contrived?

Both Delambre and Méchain were professional and much respected scientists, living in Catholic France, where ancient guild networks abounded. It was more common than not for individuals of their rank in society to rub shoulders with (or be affiliated with) the secret societies and Masonic orders. These ancient guilds had a longstanding tradition of preserving geometries and measurements from pre-Christian times and secretly encoding those principles into the great cathedrals or public buildings of Europe. Even new cities of the time, like Washington D.C., were being laid out in accordance with Masonic geometric principles, gratis of the founding fathers of the United States.

The litre is the cubic capacity of 10cm X 10cm X 10cm and this weight of water represents 1 kilogram. It just so happens, quite by chance, that one ounce in the imperial British system (437.5 grains) = 28.35 grams in the metric system. This also equates to 28350 milligrams. The selfsame value, rendered as 2835 feet, was the intended perimeter value for a full circuit around Khafre Pyramid's base. It appears obvious that the gram is related to the 437.5 grains of the British ounce of 10 Egyptian Deben. This grain count had an affiliation to the system instituted by Charlemagne. King John and Edward III, who reigned virtually contemporaneously, introduced systems that accommodated the 437.5-grain ounce admirably. King John's Pile was intended to convey 432 ounces (4320 Deben) or 27 latter English pounds of 7000 grains. There appear to have been 4375000 inches in 1-degree of equatorial arc, under a special "7" system shared by the Romans, Greeks, Hebrews and Egyptians.

The sum of 28.35 metric grams is simply the Roman trade standard Uncia adopted by Edward III in 1340 A. D…based upon a late surviving "Silver standard" Mina of 7000 grains. It seems a little uncanny and a bit too convenient that 1 ounce = 28.35 grams...a significant, old world lunar number.

I've recently read disparaging commentary, directed at the British Imperial system of metrology, issuing forth from "champions" of metrication who state such things as, 'Units of length based on body parts cannot be relied on to be accurate'...which made me think of an old quote...

'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge...Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest, or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened or who laid the cornerstone thereof? (Job 38: 2-6).

The ancient universal metrological science, of which the British Imperial Standard is a "walking wounded" remnant survivor, was based upon the true size of the Earth, the precise cycles of the sun & moon (producing the best lunisolar calendar system the world has ever known) and incremental values that worked wonderfully with PI for successful world navigation. The system was so advanced mathematically that it "tamed for use" the difficult PHI formula and applied it in many building applications. This old standard was a brilliant, precise and all encompassing, scientific construct that addressed every arising calculation need confronted by ancient civilisations. The system is as relevant today as it was in antiquity and has never been superceded by anything superior to it. It is at the very foundation of civilisation itself. The world's religions, long before they became corrupted by dogma and power mongery, had a pedigree back to (and were formerly based upon) this incredible parcel of knowledge.

The metrication incentive could be described along the lines of a wimpish, little boy sent forth to do a strong man's job! It is to metrology what Esperanto is to languages…It doesn't make the grade and, in an overall sense, simply wastes everyone's precious time in a naïve pursuit, which was prematurely initiated in an era lacking the essential scientific capability to achieve a reasonable result.

The metric system is an incomplete entity or orphan and could not have subsisted by itself in antiquity. The ancient civilisations used the whole range of numbers, from 1 to 13 and increases thereof. They needed progressions in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, as well as PI, PHI and a multitude of fractions. The metric system, most certainly, existed in antiquity, alongside all of the other number systems. The full family of numbers was capable of addressing all contingencies and demands of science and ancient industry.
Ancient societies would have viewed it as sheer madness to discard over 90% of the complete system in order to work with only one of the number categories. Using the full system, in individual families of numerical progressions, was the only way of monitoring, calculating and remembering the difficult astronomical cycles or principles of navigation. The Egyptians counted in base 10 and so did everyone else amongst the cousin peoples…but they used "6, 7, & 11" numerical families, etc., (in base 10), as well.

The metric system was instituted, primarily for the convenience of bankers and bean counters. It's a nightmare for engineers and anyone else who has to work to refined tolerances. Carpenters can get by with it, as they generally work to visual tolerances that are within the capabilities of metric rulers. Trying to fashion chronology systems on a metric basis is nigh on impossible. We do, however, need the convenience of a metric system, within a wider metrological system, for some limited, decimalised functions.

It would have been more rational to simply base a system on traditional measurements increments like the inch and foot, then decimalise them. This approach has been used since time immemorial, wherein various trades have segmented up a standard ruler into divisions that suited that trade…half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth for some…third, sixth, twelfth, twenty-fourth for others…or fifth, tenth, fiftieth, one-hundredth for yet others...not to forget the "7" progressions as well. By such a simple method, everyone got on with the job and had constantly on hand the convenient increments, in fully reducible fractions, needed in their particular problem solving or fabrication functions. The whole metrication incentive has been, overall amidst the trades, a nightmare. It's a perfect example of what happens when accountants take over the world …SNAFU.

A full restoration of the ancient and highly sophisticated Mediterranean/ universal metrological system, with all of its appendages, is obligatory. Even if we move away into other realms of metrology, we still owe it to history to restore and preserve our heritage. It would be utterly sacrilegious to "kill off" the system that was at the heart of civilisation for millennia as the central ingredient in the advancement of great empires. The old scientific standard must be reinvestigated fully, reconstructed and restored to a position of prominence if we are ever to understand what has truly gone on history. To lose our grasp on the old, commonly shared metrological systems is to lose the most significant key to unlocking the scientific concepts held in universal reverence by the great empires of recorded history.

18th of November 2002. ©